Valvoline Synpower 5W-30, 6300 mi, GM 3.5L

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Radman
@baldtlc Just a quick link for proofing my earlier statement regarding TBN/TAN.

http://www.polarislabs1.com/pdf/optimizing-drain-intervals-using-tbn-vs-tan.pdf


You said TAN and TBN cross around 50% of the starting TBN. That is flat out incorrect. There have been several UOAs on this site in the last year that show TANs below TBN with TBNs well under 3 for oils that had starting TBNs of 8+.

That doesn't even address the different way TAN reacts/changes with respect to type of base oil used.

 

[Radman]

This is quite amusing posting to you. Although short of writing a graduate Thesis full of references isn't practical. So I will just say that telling someone that they are incorrect doesn't make it so. PROVE me incorrect and I would be a better man for it.

 

[ZZman]

Not a bad report for the miles and the weak oil you used.

I am not impressed with the weak add pack of Synpower.

 

[ZZman]

Hey Radman the reason the 3,000 mile oil changes don't make much sense anymore is because everything has gotten better:

1. Tighter engines
2. Cleaner fuel
3. Fuel injection
4. Better oils (Now G-5)

 

[Brons2]

Originally Posted By: Radman
@baldtlc Just a quick link for proofing my earlier statement regarding TBN/TAN.

http://www.polarislabs1.com/pdf/optimizing-drain-intervals-using-tbn-vs-tan.pdf


You're not reading that correctly. It states that in the PAST they determined the optimal time for changing oil was when TBN and TAN crossed, using ASTM D-2896. Now, they are using ASTM D-4739, and their recommended test suite does not include TAN.

Furthermore, they are talking about diesel engines in that marketing slick, and CJ-4 HDEO oils, which is a different ball of wax than most PCMO oils in gasoline engines.

You're new to this forum. Posting links to 3rd party sites with which content you may not have a background understanding to, does not earn you your stripes. Go ahead, keep posting away, but it doesn't mean that us longtime readers are going to listen.

 

[shpankey]

Although it's certainly nothing definitive, I have seen 2 occasions on the same test car, which was sampled on both oils once every one thousand miles, show higher wear when the oil was initially put in.

Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding this as it's rather old. I'm sure many people here at bitog have seen it though. It's with the camaro v8 car sampling M1 5w30 and Amsoil 5w30. I believe the M1 made it out to like 18k miles before they simply moved on to the Amsoil, but technically the oil was not spent yet. The Amsoil I think made it to like 12k miles or something. This was a case study for showing how long an oil could go more than anything. Perhaps someone here has the link still and can provide it, but it's a well known case study. In this, it definitely did show higher wear on the two oils when new. But I don't pretend this is anything in any way definitive... but it does lend, at least some, credence to the theory.

Edit: found it...
Synthetic Oil Life Study

 

[shpankey]

I should also say I'm not trying to argue this point for the person above who made it. So continue on with him. Just adding to your discussion and since it was asked to see evidence of this and I remembered that study I posted it. It's been awhile since I read that study, but it is interesting reading it again. They also made a claim on the M1 page to this point, themselves citing some other studies. Their words below, not mine...

"Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages. This has also been substantiated in testing conducted by Ford Motor Co. and ConocoPhillips, and reported in SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119. What this means is that compulsive oil changers are actually causing more engine wear than the people who let their engine's oil get some age on it."

...so to that point, there are a couple for you to check out.

 

[shpankey]

More from that link on the subject (everything below)...

"The solid lines are the standardized cumulative totals of wear metals in parts per million for iron, copper, and lead. The shaded lines are the standardized totals of wear metals in ppm per mile -- in other words, the shaded lines represent how quickly the wear metals accumulate as compared to how quickly the miles accumulate.

While the wear metals all accumulated steadily over the course of the test, the highest concentrations of accumulation per mile occurred in the first 3,000 miles of the test! From the 3,000-mile mark all the way to 18,000 miles, only lead showed an increase in per-mile wear beyond 3,000 miles. Yet even with an increased wear rate, lead wore the least in terms of absolute wear. For iron and copper, the longer the oil remained in service, the lower the wear rate got.

In case it isn't obvious yet, this means that the most wear occurs in the first 3,000 miles."

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Hey Radman the reason the 3,000 mile oil changes don't make much sense anymore is because everything has gotten better:

1. Tighter engines
2. Cleaner fuel
3. Fuel injection
4. Better oils (Now G-5)

6. Most importantly unleaded gasoline. The best thing to ever happen to the auto engine.
#6 should be #1 [The main reason]. No brag just fact.

 

[Steve S]

Just run dino oil for a few 5,000 mile oil change intervals and see what happens..

 

[Norm Olt]

I guess I still just don't get it?

TBN, viscosity & flashpoint all were OK, there was a lowering of the two items the OP was presumably concerned about (copper & lead) at 6,300 miles, and the suggestion is that an even longer (8K vs. 6,300) interval might be appropriate.

Of course this is before an anticipated re-te$ting...

What is the actual goal here? Is St. Peter going to ask us to substantiate what the average ppm copper & lead was for all OCI's from 50K to 175K on our cute-ute at the Pearly Gates before he lets us in?

I mean, I already KNOW about all those un-used cell phone minutes, but 22 vs. 15 ppm iron?


Cheers!

 

[Radman]

I did some more internet searching for that SAE paper and found this on another forum about the web page I linked to:

"This is a gross miss-representation of what SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119
determined. The title of the paper is - "Antiwear Performance of Low
Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test"
The test was a pure wear test using externally driven valve train
components. A complete engine was not involved. There was no dilution of the
oil by blow-by, no combustion products added to the oil, and no water added
to the oil. The results might matter if you are building a sealed machine
driven by an electric motor, but trying to claim this paper is a basis for
extending oil change intervals is not reasonable."