Wear Increases After OC?
- Thread starter CarbonSteel
- Start date
Removed is often used to describe the phenomenon. You used "stripped" unmodified in this thread. People, including myself, would interpret stripped to mean completely removed.
I would suspect the "almost instant" response is due to the Ceratec modifying the friction properties of the oil itself rather than altering the tribofilm that quickly. The quoted research shows that the change in the tribofilm is not an instant phenomenon. It will be interesting when a definitive cause is found.
Ed
Yeah, semantics. Never claimed or meant that it was 100% "stripped/removed". Could have used a better phrase I guess, like "partially removes the tribofilm" or "strips/removes some of the tribofilm", etc.
Never said or claimed that Ceratec instantly made some magic tribofilm ... I simple said it changed the friction level between moving parts. Obviously, it could not build up a new tribofilm in just a few minutes of the engine running after it was added to the oil.
From post #38:
"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."
Ford has never said what it's caused by. They came out with a SSM (Special Service Message - took them about 6-7 years to make a statement about it) that says it's a "characteristic" of that engine, and does not cause any issues to longevity/reliability of the engine. There isn't, and probably never will be a definitive cause of the Coyote BBQ tick. My theory of the oil change effecting the old tribofilm and a change in the friction level between moving parts seems to be what it most likely is, based on how these ticking engines behave after an oil change and when Ceratec is added.
Ford calls it the "typewriter tick". Coyote owners dubbed it the BBQ tick before Ford ever addressed it. In the early days after the Coyote came out and people were complaining about the ticking showing up after an oil change, Ford actually had a Motorcraft friction modifier called XL-17 that the Ford field techs would add to the engine to stop the ticking. Motorcraft XL-17 is no longer available, but you can Google it if interested in finding out more.
Last edited:
used oil better than new?
SAE paper 2007-01-4133 https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/2007-01-4133 Lower friction in old vs new oil. That would explain the initial high wear with new oil phenomenon. I bet this is because ZDDP needs to be heated first to activate. My thoughts: should there be a market for a "preowned...
bobistheoilguy.com
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
See Ed Hackett's post above for a more plausible explanation for increased wear immediately after an OC. It ties into my thoughts as well. I don't fully buy into new oil causing more wear...
The only increased wear is when the oil filter is filling up after installing it without prefilling. I wonder if thats why Honda only changes its filters every other oil change.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Given there is residual oil on all internal engine parts (unless the engine has been drained for months), I would opine that wear is zero. There are many filters which cannot be prefilled--my 3.6L Wrangler is one and yet there are examples of that engine lasting 200K, 300K, and even one not too long ago that lasted 600K.
I have a Pentastar as well and agree about can not prefill the cartridge filter, but people are saying that changing oil on short intervals are averaging higher wear than run it longer, when they average the wear on the engine. I think the wear is noticeable on when sampling on paper but not enough to effect the engines much. Could the engine made 400,000 miles instead of only 398,000 miles ???? My question is the wear zero or near zero while the filter fills??? One probably gets alot more wear in the winter during subzero weather by running a l thicker oil vs a thinner oil?
dnewton3
Staff member
1) pretty much every OCI will show a slight uptick in metals right after an OCI. It is presumed to be a combination of the TCB being stripped along with residual from the remaining oil. There is no known study I'm aware of that has attempted to quantify how much of each contributor is doing what % of the result. I offer this for those who've not read it, or have and forgot about it:
2) I don't understand why some people here CONTINUALLY espouse that UOAs cannot be used track wear. That is patently untrue. There are multiple SAE studies which show excellent correlation between UOA wear metal rates and other wear measurement methods. If you trust the bombardment or weight analysis methods, then you have to trust the UOAs, because they all echo each other in correlation.
- GM filter study (HALT study)
- the "bus" study (field study)
- the Ford/Conoco study (field study)
UOAs are a reasonably accurate method to track wear trends and rates; they are far, far faster and cheaper than any other method anyone here could ever hope to find. It's not like tearing down an engine is quick and cheap; there are huge errors which can happen in a tear-down analysis. It's not like everyone here has electron bombardment equipment or hyper-sensitive weight analysis equipment in their garage. But for $20 or so, you can get a UOA from a reputable lab. UOAs show you a percentage of the wear metals, and you infer the relationship to the whole.
3) Why is it that people who look at the LUBE properties (vis, FP, dilution, etc) in a UOA with complete belief, then turn around and say you can't trust the metal counts from a UOA ??? Where's the logic in saying that only some portion of the UOA is valid, but another part isn't? That makes no sense. If you trust the VOA/UOA to tell you how much Ca or boron is present in the oil, why do you not trust it to indicate how much Fe or Al is in the oil ???? That is selective, biased, unbalanced logic.
4) it certainly is true that UOAs won't see all manner of wear particles, because they can only see particles less than 5um, give or take a bit. So wear particles which are larger than 5um go uncounted in typical spectral analysis. But, there are inferences one can draw in terms of relative population. This is done all the time; rather than count ALL elements in a group, a sample is taken and then % inferred. This "sample" methodology is used literally everywhere around the world in daily manufacturing SPC quality programs. One does not need to know the entire population count; you can take samples in get accurate estimates.
5) it is true that UOAs won't catch all wear; that is discussed above. The fact that a UOA may miss some impending catastrophic event in acedotcal evidence is not a reason to condemn the entire industry.
6) it is true that MOST people don't understand the benefits and limitations of UOAs, and grossly misuse and misinterpret the data they see. That does not make UOAs unworthy; it only means people don't use the tool properly. It's not the fault of any tool if it is misused or misunderstood.
I would challenge anyone to offer SAE study papers which show UOAs do not correlate to other methods of measurement. Show me a specific SAE study that sets it's protagonist theory to indicate that UOAs are inherrently inaccurate, and then succeeds in proving that theory. OTOH, I can name and discuss several which use UOAs and other methods in concert, indicating good correlation.
I have over 30k UOAs in my database; so many that honestly I've lost track of the count. I can tell you with the utmost certainty that wear rates will go up soon after an OCI, and then settle again in any "normal" engine-lube application. I cannot tell you how much of this is TCB vs residual, but then again no one else has ever studied it and logged an SAE paper, so there is no basis for denial. The facts show the wear trend phenomenon to be true. How much of it is due to any one particular cause is anyone's guess. But your denial of the phenomenon does not make it any less true.
Used Oil Analysis: How to decide what is normal - Bob is the Oil Guy
Reviewing UOA Data Used oil analyses (UOAs) are tools. And like most tools, they can either be properly used or misused, depending upon the application, the user, the surrounding conditions, etc.= There are already many good articles and publications in existence that tell us how to interpret...
bobistheoilguy.com
2) I don't understand why some people here CONTINUALLY espouse that UOAs cannot be used track wear. That is patently untrue. There are multiple SAE studies which show excellent correlation between UOA wear metal rates and other wear measurement methods. If you trust the bombardment or weight analysis methods, then you have to trust the UOAs, because they all echo each other in correlation.
- GM filter study (HALT study)
- the "bus" study (field study)
- the Ford/Conoco study (field study)
UOAs are a reasonably accurate method to track wear trends and rates; they are far, far faster and cheaper than any other method anyone here could ever hope to find. It's not like tearing down an engine is quick and cheap; there are huge errors which can happen in a tear-down analysis. It's not like everyone here has electron bombardment equipment or hyper-sensitive weight analysis equipment in their garage. But for $20 or so, you can get a UOA from a reputable lab. UOAs show you a percentage of the wear metals, and you infer the relationship to the whole.
3) Why is it that people who look at the LUBE properties (vis, FP, dilution, etc) in a UOA with complete belief, then turn around and say you can't trust the metal counts from a UOA ??? Where's the logic in saying that only some portion of the UOA is valid, but another part isn't? That makes no sense. If you trust the VOA/UOA to tell you how much Ca or boron is present in the oil, why do you not trust it to indicate how much Fe or Al is in the oil ???? That is selective, biased, unbalanced logic.
4) it certainly is true that UOAs won't see all manner of wear particles, because they can only see particles less than 5um, give or take a bit. So wear particles which are larger than 5um go uncounted in typical spectral analysis. But, there are inferences one can draw in terms of relative population. This is done all the time; rather than count ALL elements in a group, a sample is taken and then % inferred. This "sample" methodology is used literally everywhere around the world in daily manufacturing SPC quality programs. One does not need to know the entire population count; you can take samples in get accurate estimates.
5) it is true that UOAs won't catch all wear; that is discussed above. The fact that a UOA may miss some impending catastrophic event in acedotcal evidence is not a reason to condemn the entire industry.
6) it is true that MOST people don't understand the benefits and limitations of UOAs, and grossly misuse and misinterpret the data they see. That does not make UOAs unworthy; it only means people don't use the tool properly. It's not the fault of any tool if it is misused or misunderstood.
I would challenge anyone to offer SAE study papers which show UOAs do not correlate to other methods of measurement. Show me a specific SAE study that sets it's protagonist theory to indicate that UOAs are inherrently inaccurate, and then succeeds in proving that theory. OTOH, I can name and discuss several which use UOAs and other methods in concert, indicating good correlation.
I have over 30k UOAs in my database; so many that honestly I've lost track of the count. I can tell you with the utmost certainty that wear rates will go up soon after an OCI, and then settle again in any "normal" engine-lube application. I cannot tell you how much of this is TCB vs residual, but then again no one else has ever studied it and logged an SAE paper, so there is no basis for denial. The facts show the wear trend phenomenon to be true. How much of it is due to any one particular cause is anyone's guess. But your denial of the phenomenon does not make it any less true.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Averaging higher wear due to short or frequent OCIs or immediately after an OC is the premise for my thread. @edhackett was able to show mathematically how "more wear" can happen without real wear actually happening.
You may see more wear in the winter due to temperatures, but that is why it is important to run an oil with the proper winter rating. I all but firmly in the camp of there is no increased wear due to frequent OCIs and as far as longer OCIs producing less wear, Ed's premise covers that too.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
I am of the belief it is more hypothetical versus actual due to the residuals that remain after an OC. What would be very interesting would be a study that completely flushes the engine (and I mean every nook and cranny) between OCs to have better understanding of what actually happens.
I have not seen a study anywhere that uses this premise...
dnewton3
Staff member
Go purchase and read SAE 2007-01-4133.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
No need. @edhackett did a great job of explaining that study's shortcomings and I am almost certain they did not completely flush the engine between runs.
Why would that be the case? Do you have anything that shows this?
This is correct. People pile a lot on that study and it is very much unwarranted. User Shannow also pointed out the many flaws in that paper.
As brought up in those previous discussions, the simpler way to get a baseline and "zero out" any dirty oil left over in the engine is to do a UOA (like 20 miles on the new oil) right after the oil change. Then monitor wear from that baseline.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
I would want a study of the substance we have been discussing to be much more controlled than that especially given the variations that can happen with UOAs.
Then completely tear down your engine, lol. Doing a UOA baseline 20 miles after the oil was changed would be way better than guessing, and something you and others can actually do without much hassle and cost.
Similar threads
