Wear Increases After OC?

[CarbonSteel]

Did you have a VOA of the Kendall so you knew where it's baseline was? Why are most of the add pack compounds higher on the 2nd run of the Kendall GT-1? It can't be from residual GT-1 oil if that residual oil had the same ppm of those compounds.

What was the VOA of sodium on the Mobil? The level of sodium can be due to other factors besides what was in a VOA before use.

First and foremost, I am not saying that a $30 UOA is going to prove or disprove my supposition--they are far too many variables in the UOA testing alone for that to be a possibility and it would take substantial testing with a myriad of test parameters to do that.

What I am suggesting is:

1. If the additive pack elements carry over from one UOA to another, then why can’t the wear metals? I believe they can and do which influences the results of the subsequent tests--how much is unknown and I get and accept that.

2. Without completely flushing the internals before starting the next run, there is no “clean” baseline and point #1 happens.

3. I would love to know what test results show the increased wear after an oil change and how much wear happens. I assume one would have to pay someone for them, but it would be interesting to read nonetheless.

Next, to your point of "Why are most of the add pack compounds higher on the 2nd run of the Kendall GT-1?" With the exception of manganese (which neither oil had) if they carry over, why would they not be cumulative and be added to the number of the next oil run?

Lastly, again, I get this is in no way going to prove or disprove anything, it is just a thought that I had that I think has some merit.

Here are VOAs of the two oils. Two different labs so there is yet another variable, not to mention there will always be a range of error in a UOA/VOA and I get that too:

 

[2005jettatdi]

I have never believed the new oil, high wear myth. It just plain does not make any sense. My personal belief is going 10k miles between oil changes overwhelms the additive packages and metals build up beyond the ability of the oil to carry them in suspension. So, the new oil picks them up right away. However, the metals in the residual oil makes sense too.

I will continue my 5,000 miles OCIs and destroy my almost new engine (only 318,000 miles), which still does not use oil between changes.

 

[4WD]

First and foremost, I am not saying that a $30 UOA is going to prove or disprove my supposition--they are far too many variables in the UOA testing alone for that to be a possibility and it would take substantial testing with a myriad of test parameters to do that.

What I am suggesting is:

1. If the additive pack elements carry over from one UOA to another, then why can’t the wear metals? I believe they can and do which influences the results of the subsequent tests--how much is unknown and I get and accept that.

2. Without completely flushing the internals before starting the next run, there is no “clean” baseline and point #1 happens.

3. I would love to know what test results show the increased wear after an oil change and how much wear happens. I assume one would have to pay someone for them, but it would be interesting to read nonetheless.

Next, to your point of "Why are most of the add pack compounds higher on the 2nd run of the Kendall GT-1?" With the exception of manganese (which neither oil had) if they carry over, why would they not be cumulative and be added to the number of the next oil run?

Lastly, again, I get this is in no way going to prove or disprove anything, it is just a thought that I had that I think has some merit.

Here are VOAs of the two oils. Two different labs so there is yet another variable, not to mention there will always be a range of error in a UOA/VOA and I get that too:


View attachment 139145

Those look like wimp’s compared to PVL’s posted lately - but that MS is what took the BiL’s SBC to 400k

 

[ZeeOSix]

What I am suggesting is:

1. If the additive pack elements carry over from one UOA to another, then why can’t the wear metals? I believe they can and do which influences the results of the subsequent tests--how much is unknown and I get and accept that.

Sure, any wear metals left over in the old oil would carry over and mix with the new oil. But the example I gave (10% old oil left in the engine) shows that the amount of left over old oil added and mixed with the new oil would put the resulting wear metals ppm basically in the noise level, especially the longer the new oil is ran. If the new oil with the old oil mix resulted in iron showing 1 ppm with only 10 miles on the new oil, and the oil was ran to 10K miles and showed 12 ppm and you subtracted that 1 ppm baseline, then the "real" wear was 11 ppm. But are UOAs really that accurate and repeatable to accurately distinguish that 1 ppm out of 12 ppm? In other words, if you did a regular oil change and left some old oil in vs. removing every drop of oil out of the engine, would the UOA really show 12 ppm for the regular oil change and 11 ppm for the engine with every drop removed before running the new oil. I highly doubt it would. All in the noise.

2. Without completely flushing the internals before starting the next run, there is no “clean” baseline and point #1 happens.

That's why taking a baseline UOA shortly after an oil change was suggested. But I think it would be a waste unless you're trying to do a controlled test to try and determine the level of left over oil influence on the baseline of the new oil.

3. I would love to know what test results show the increased wear after an oil change and how much wear happens. I assume one would have to pay someone for them, but it would be interesting to read nonetheless.

Studies have been done about the tribofilm stripping vs wear aspect, but you'd probably have to pay for the SAE papers to see the testing and results. The increase in wear from dirty oil probably isn't going to be impacted much if any by leaving 10% (my example) of old oil in the engine during an oil change. If every drop of old oil was removed from an engine and it started out with 0 ppm of iron, vs starting out with say 1 ppm of iron because 10% of the oil oil with 8 ppm of iron was mixed in, I really don't think anyone is going to know the difference. If you're worried about adding engine wear from the oil becoming contaminated, run a high efficiency oil filter and/or change the oil more often to start with a clean sump fill.

Next, to your point of "Why are most of the add pack compounds higher on the 2nd run of the Kendall GT-1?" With the exception of manganese (which neither oil had) if they carry over, why would they not be cumulative and be added to the number of the next oil run?

If the same oil had the same add pack ppm amount, and it didn't change over the OCI, then the dirty oil add pack ppm would be the same as the new oil add pack ppm, so it can't increase or decrease the add pack ppm level when it's the same to start with. Now if you ran an oil with much higher add pack ppms, and changed to an oil with less, then it may bump up the add pack compound ppms slightly depending on how much old oil was left in the engine, just like the wear metals example.

 

[edhackett]

I don't think the studies that try to determine if the wear increases with an oil change use a Blackstone type of UOA. They are probably using much more sophisticated test methods.

I've never seen a study that sets out to specifically determine if wear increases after an oil change. We've seen studies that demonstrate an apparent correlation between OCI and wear. None of those had an experimental design that controlled the variables necessary to make a statement of causation.

Ed

 

[ZeeOSix]

I've never seen a study that sets out to specifically determine if wear increases after an oil change. We've seen studies that demonstrate an apparent correlation between OCI and wear. None of those had an experimental design that controlled the variables necessary to make a statement of causation.

Ed

This would be a good way to test the theory. Don't know if it's ever been used for a wear rate measurement after an oil change study and how the wear rate changes as the miles increase on the oil.

SwRI adds unique, efficient engine wear testing rig

Southwest Research Institute recently added an additional single cam rig (SCR) to its considerable array of tribology testing equipment. The rig, which investigates wear mechanisms in engine valvetrain components, was designed and created by SwRI staff led by Staff Engineer Dr. Peter Lee.

www.swri.org

 

[CarbonSteel]

I've never seen a study that sets out to specifically determine if wear increases after an oil change. We've seen studies that demonstrate an apparent correlation between OCI and wear. None of those had an experimental design that controlled the variables necessary to make a statement of causation.

Ed

Good to know. This makes me wonder why I have seen this stated more than once on this forum. I also assume the correlation between OCI and wear is due to too long of an OCI and not too short, correct?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Studies have been done about the tribofilm stripping vs wear aspect, but you'd probably have to pay for the SAE papers to see the testing and results. The increase in wear from dirty oil probably isn't going to be impacted much if any by leaving 10% (my example) of old oil in the engine during an oil change. If every drop of old oil was removed from an engine and it started out with 0 ppm of iron, vs starting out with say 1 ppm of iron because 10% of the oil oil with 8 ppm of iron was mixed in, I really don't think anyone is going to know the difference. If you're worried about adding engine wear from the oil becoming contaminated, run a high efficiency oil filter and/or change the oil more often to start with a clean sump fill.

In the end, I am (more or less) questioning the statement of more wear after an OC (first), how it was determined there was more wear (next), and (lastly) how much "more wear" there was.

This was an exercise in theory to a large degree and Ed Hackett answered my initial question so I am good. I was not concerned about more wear after an OC as it seems counterintuitive to what should happen by removing dirty/contaminated oil and replacing it with new or at the very least, we are talking about something so miniscule it is essentially irrelevant.

Thanks for the point/counterpoint!

 

[ZeeOSix]

In the end, I am (more or less) questioning the statement of more wear after an OC (first), how it was determined there was more wear (next), and (lastly) how much "more wear" there was.

See posts #12 and #16 in the link below. Here's the SAE paper he referenced - the abstract doesn't say much about what he claimed from the paper: https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2003-01-3119/

You'd have to read the whole paper, but apparently they used the radioactive parts testing method. If the new oil strips the protective anti-wear tribofilm from the surface of parts, it seems logical that the wear would increase slightly until a new tribofilm is built back up. I'm sure the wear level is small, but it can apparently happen from tribofilm stripping.

NEw oil= increased engine wear?

I had recently read, that when you drain old oil, and add new oil you are actually causing increased enigne wear, that the new oil needs to be broken in ect, and wont have the same lubricity of hte old oil thats colected dirt and mileage. Is this true? I find that hard to belive... I alwasy...

bobistheoilguy.com

This was an exercise in theory to a large degree and Ed Hackett answered my initial question so I am good. I was not concerned about more wear after an OC as it seems counterintuitive to what should happen by removing dirty/contaminated oil and replacing it with new or at the very least, we are talking about something so miniscule it is essentially irrelevant.

Thanks for the point/counterpoint!

Yeah, it's something I don't worry about. My main goal is to use a good full synthetic oil with a good add pack and a HTHS above 3.0 cP to ensure some MOFT headroom.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Another reference to a wear study vs oil change and OCI lengths.

More wear with excessively frequent oil changes?

The only place I’ve heard this is a person on bobistheoilguy who claims short oil change intervals increases wear. He sites an SAE article. Here’s a couple of his quotes: "If you buy/read SAE 2007-01-4133, you can see that using a decent filter (nothing super premium, just a normal filter)...

community.cartalk.com

 

[CarbonSteel]

Another reference to a wear study vs oil change and OCI lengths.

More wear with excessively frequent oil changes?

The only place I’ve heard this is a person on bobistheoilguy who claims short oil change intervals increases wear. He sites an SAE article. Here’s a couple of his quotes: "If you buy/read SAE 2007-01-4133, you can see that using a decent filter (nothing super premium, just a normal filter)...

community.cartalk.com

Heh...seems CircuitSmith stated the same concept I did (more or less). I will see if I can find that SAE paper.

 

[edhackett]

This would be a good way to test the theory. Don't know if it's ever been used for a wear rate measurement after an oil change study and how the wear rate changes as the miles increase on the oil.

SwRI adds unique, efficient engine wear testing rig

Southwest Research Institute recently added an additional single cam rig (SCR) to its considerable array of tribology testing equipment. The rig, which investigates wear mechanisms in engine valvetrain components, was designed and created by SwRI staff led by Staff Engineer Dr. Peter Lee.

www.swri.org

The article was short on describing exactly how it operates. It might lend itself to this type of testing because it would make direct measurements or the use of Co56 doped parts easier.

On the other hand, one of the reasons the Ford study being discussed isn't useful in determining wear after an oil change is that the wear testing was done on a bench apparatus. The reason aged oil is better at forming a tribofilm is the presence of daughter products of the antiwear compounds and maybe certain combustion products being beneficial. The fresh oil in this paper remained fresh throughout the test period. In an engine the carry-over oil spikes the new oil with the desirable aged compounds and they begin accumulating from the instant the engine is started.

As an aside, and maybe a not so humble brag, we(Desert Research Institute) partnered with SWRI on many projects. They had all the cool engine toys, we had all the cool analytical toys. We did some good research together. Being the first to run wear metals in diesel exhaust was a fun project.

Ed

 

[edhackett]

First and foremost, I am not saying that a $30 UOA is going to prove or disprove my supposition--they are far too many variables in the UOA testing alone for that to be a possibility and it would take substantial testing with a myriad of test parameters to do that.

What I am suggesting is:

1. If the additive pack elements carry over from one UOA to another, then why can’t the wear metals? I believe they can and do which influences the results of the subsequent tests--how much is unknown and I get and accept that.

Yes, they do carry over. I ran the math quite a while ago when discussing the value of a cheap UOA for determining wear due to fresh oil.

The "blip" we see in UOAs can not be used to demonstrate this supposed phenomenon either. Carryover is an uncontrolled variable. Let's take an engine with a 5 qt. sump with 10% carryover that produces a constant 10ppm Fe per 1000 miles, and a 10K OCI as an example. Draw a sample at 1 mile and at every 1K thereafter. This is what the data would look like:
1 mile 11 ppm = 11 ppm/mile
1K miles 21 ppm = 0.0210 ppm/mile
2K miles 31 ppm = 0.0155 ppm/mile
3K miles 41ppm = 0.0137 ppm/mile
4K miles 51 ppm = 0.0128 ppm/mile
5K miles 61 ppm = 0.0122 ppm/mile
6K miles 71 ppm = 0.0118 ppm/mile
7K miles 81 ppm = 0.0116 ppm/mile
8K miles 91 ppm = 0.0114 ppm/mile
9K miles 101 ppm = 0.0112 ppm/mile
10K miles 111 ppm = 0.0111 ppm/mile
There you go, the blip seen in UOAs explained by simple math, no extra wear required.

Even if the wear generation rate is smaller, it must be controlled in your experimental design. The effect is real and it would explain some part of what you are trying to prove. If the values are too small to be resolved or fall outside the precision of a $35 UOA, the analytical technique is not suitable for your purpose.

Ed

 

[ZeeOSix]

The article was short on describing exactly how it operates. It might lend itself to this type of testing because it would make direct measurements or the use of Co56 doped parts easier.

On the other hand, one of the reasons the Ford study being discussed isn't useful in determining wear after an oil change is that the wear testing was done on a bench apparatus. The reason aged oil is better at forming a tribofilm is the presence of daughter products of the antiwear compounds and maybe certain combustion products being beneficial. The fresh oil in this paper remained fresh throughout the test period. In an engine the carry-over oil spikes the new oil with the desirable aged compounds and they begin accumulating from the instant the engine is started.

As an aside, and maybe a not so humble brag, we(Desert Research Institute) partnered with SWRI on many projects. They had all the cool engine toys, we had all the cool analytical toys. We did some good research together. Being the first to run wear metals in diesel exhaust was a fun project.

Ed

This was the other link I wanted to post earlier, but didn't ... so here it is now. If you've worked in conjunction with the SwRI then you probably already know of this capability. This seems like a pretty slick way to measure wear rates on specific engine components in real time with different oils and under different conditions. It's not really "new" technology, but seems like one of the better testing methods for wear studies.

Radioactive Wear Measurement

We have used radioactive tracer technology (RATT®) for over 50 years to make highly accurate and sensitive, real-time wear measurements in operating engines and other mechanical systems. Friction and wear are typically measured in engines to evaluate lubricant chemistries, component design, and...

www.swri.org

 

[CarbonSteel]

Yes, they do carry over. I ran the math quite a while ago when discussing the value of a cheap UOA for determining wear due to fresh oil.

The "blip" we see in UOAs can not be used to demonstrate this supposed phenomenon either. Carryover is an uncontrolled variable. Let's take an engine with a 5 qt. sump with 10% carryover that produces a constant 10ppm Fe per 1000 miles, and a 10K OCI as an example. Draw a sample at 100 miles and at every 1K thereafter. This is what the data would look like:
100 miles 11 ppm = 0.1100 ppm/mile
1K miles 21 ppm = 0.0210 ppm/mile
2K miles 31 ppm = 0.0155 ppm/mile
3K miles 41ppm = 0.0137 ppm/mile
4K miles 51 ppm = 0.0128 ppm/mile
5K miles 61 ppm = 0.0122 ppm/mile
6K miles 71 ppm = 0.0118 ppm/mile
7K miles 81 ppm = 0.0116 ppm/mile
8K miles 91 ppm = 0.0114 ppm/mile
9K miles 101 ppm = 0.0112 ppm/mile
10K miles 111 ppm = 0.0111 ppm/mile
There you go, the blip seen in UOAs explained by simple math, no extra wear required.

Even if the wear generation rate is smaller, it must be controlled in your experimental design. The effect is real and it would explain some part of what you are trying to prove. If the values are too small to be resolved or fall outside the precision of a $35 UOA, the analytical technique is not suitable for your purpose.

Ed

Many thanks for this Ed. It helps to have someone present the scenario in a different way. I have long suspected the initial increase was due to not "zeroing" the engine (e.g. 100% flush the engine) and remnants carry over.

It makes sense because the add pack elements show up after the oil is no longer used so the wear metals must do the same.

Thanks again.

 

[edhackett]

Studies have been done about the tribofilm stripping vs wear aspect, but you'd probably have to pay for the SAE papers to see the testing and results.

The full stripping myth comes from a misinterpretation of the Ford study. It is from a study cited in the introduction that was done on non fully formulated oils. That experiment had nothing to do with what happens using fully formulated oil in an engine.

Here's a quote from the authors of the Ford study:

It was observed before (2) that once a ZDDP derived film is formed, it stayed on the surface even when rubbing continued with base oil only. It is likely that the film will be removed ultimately or replaced by a different type of film, but it points to the fact that once the film is formed with a fully formulated oil, it is not removed very quickly. The existing film may affect the chemical mechanism for forming the new film which provided the reduced friction and wear rate benefit*.

Ed

*SAE 2007-01-4133
The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear
A. K. Gangopadhyay, R. O. Carter III, D. Uy, S. J. Simko and M. Riley
Ford Motor Company
C. B. Phillips and H. Gao
ConocoPhillips Company

(2)Fujita, H., Glovnea, R.P., and Spikes, H.A., "Study of zinc dialkyldithiophosphate antiwear film formation and removal processes, part I: Experimental", Trib. Trans., 2005, 48, pp.558-566.

 

[edhackett]

Many thanks for this Ed. It helps to have someone present the scenario in a different way. I have long suspected the initial increase was due to not "zeroing" the engine (e.g. 100% flush the engine) and remnants carry over.

There are other things that can contribute to that initial increase:
Presence of small amounts of elements of interest in the virgin oil. These must be known and subtracted.
The fresh oil solving metal containing deposits or varnish back into solution.
Chemical reaction of the fresh oil with non wear surfaces.

Once you have controlled for at least those plus the carry over and used an analytical technique that measures wear and only wear, you can talk about any remaining increase being due to the fresh oil.

Ed

 

[ZeeOSix]

The full stripping myth comes from a misinterpretation of the Ford study. It is from a study cited in the introduction that was done on non fully formulated oils. That experiment had nothing to do with what happens using fully formulated oil in an engine.

Here's a quote from the authors of the Ford study:

Ed

*SAE 2007-01-4133
The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear
A. K. Gangopadhyay, R. O. Carter III, D. Uy, S. J. Simko and M. Riley
Ford Motor Company
C. B. Phillips and H. Gao
ConocoPhillips Company

I don't think anyone has claimed that "full stripping"of the tribofilm takes place with a new oil change. But it's possible that some of it is, or that the tribofilm friction level is changed. Do you have current info that says otherwise?

Are you familiar at all with the Ford Coyote "BBQ tick"? Some of those engines start making a ticking noise at idle almost instantly after an oil change, using the same oil brand/weight that was dropped,. Theory is that the AF/AW tribofilm is stripped to some degree which changes the friction level going on between moving parts, and that sets off the ticking noise in some Coyote engines. Then if someone puts in as little as 150 ml of Ceratec friction modifier into the 10 quart sump (only 1.6% of the sump) the ticking noise almost instantly goes completely away because the friction level was decreased. If the engine starts ticking right after a fresh oil change (using the same oil brand/weight that was dropped), then it seems that the tribofilm is being effected and causing an increase in the friction level between moving parts.

 

[bbhero]

Zee wouldn’t it be much more legit to run a full oil change run with the same exact motor oil and Ceratec at 150 mL and then change it with the same exact motor oil and 150 mL of Ceratec but obviously new fresh oil to have a accurate comparison?

Though I will tell you when I added Ceratec to my Nissan Altima VQ at 1500 which had Royal Purple 5w30 in it… the added Ceratec did make my car run quieter too.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Zee wouldn’t it be much more legit to run a full oil change run with the same exact motor oil and Ceratec at 150 mL and then change it with the same exact motor oil and 150 mL of Ceratec but obviously new fresh oil to have a accurate comparison?

Guys with the Coyote that have the BBQ tick issue will just add the Ceratec with every oil change because if they don't add it with new oil they know it will typically show the ticking. Some guys have reported that their ticking without Ceratec in the oil would slowly disappear with added mileage on the oil, which might mean as the miles increase on the oil the AF/AW tribofilm is sllowly building back up and reducing the friction level between the parts that are sensitive to friction. Theory is that a change in the friction level on the rod big ends can cause them to "dance" side-to-side on the crank journals and smack against the crank at low idle ... kind of like shown in the YT videos below, which sounds just like the BBQ tick.

Though I will tell you when I added Ceratec to my Nissan Altima VQ at 1500 which had Royal Purple 5w30 in it… the added Ceratec did make my car run quieter too.

Did you always run it, or just experimented some?