Wear Increases After OC?

[CarbonSteel]

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.

Not the point at all and rather silly to suggest it.

The point is when a company creates a study, they should (and would) have a very consistent and controlled methodology. Everything I have read about the 2007 study suggests they did not set a baseline they could come back to--e.g. they did not flush the engine between runs so the data is not what I would use to make a statement like "more wear occurs after an OC OR there is more wear due to frequent or short OCs.

 

[kschachn]

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.

I’m with CarbonSteel on this one. There are far too many uncontrolled variables in everyday driving to make even what you suggest as unreliable. You can’t measure comparative wear with a $30 spectrographic analysis no matter how hard you try.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Not the point at all and rather silly to suggest it.

It was a joke since you think that's the better baseline ... see the "lol". But it's true that it would be the best way for a home DYI to get a baseline. What else are you going to do ... tear down the whole engine?

The point is when a company creates a study, they should (and would) have a very consistent and controlled methodology. Everything I have read about the 2007 study suggests they did not set a baseline they could come back to--e.g. they did not flush the engine between runs so the data is not what I would use to make a statement like "more wear occurs after an OC OR there is more wear due to frequent or short OCs.

Even if they would have taken a baseline UOA to determine the effect of the particulate left over in the remaining dirty oil, it would be a better baseline than nothing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I’m with CarbonSteel on this one. There are far too many uncontrolled variables in everyday driving to make even what you suggest as unreliable.

What I'm saying is if someone wants to look at the wear metals in a UOA and try to determine the wear rate without the wear metals left over from the last oil fill in the mix skewing the results, that a baseline UOA taken 20 miles after the fresh oil change is the best baseline you're going to get.

You can’t measure comparative wear with a $30 spectrographic analysis no matter how hard you try.

You'll have to get with dnewton3 on that one.

 

[4WD]

Not the point at all and rather silly to suggest it.

The point is when a company creates a study, they should (and would) have a very consistent and controlled methodology. Everything I have read about the 2007 study suggests they did not set a baseline they could come back to--e.g. they did not flush the engine between runs so the data is not what I would use to make a statement like "more wear occurs after an OC OR there is more wear due to frequent or short OCs.

Sure - with very expensive and ultra critical industrial engines there are no sump samples - hot and under load from the cooler line autoclave … on a prescribed basis - and that buys no extension - prize is you keep the warranty …

 

[userfriendly]

I think the additional wear right after an oil change is blown out of proportion. As you mentioned some vehicles hold more residual oil than others, then you have the time the oil was allowed to drain. Some people allow a few minutes, others hours or even overnight. You need a starting point.

My 6.6 Duramax LML takes 10L of oil with a new filter when the oil is drained on a level surface.
If I park the truck facing up hill, jack the front passenger side tire off the ground and let the oil drain until the last drop has dripped, it takes almost 12L of oil. In addition to the oil left in the engine with a normal drain, it takes about 2L of oil to wet a dry engine.
Normal oil change procedure in a LML would be 10 of the 14 liters that is in the engine.
I've done the drain, 600 mile drain again with the front tire in the air, both times, then a UOA @10,000 miles with stellar results.
It ain't rocket science.

The old LML has an oil pan that could use 2 drain plugs. The new L5P D-Max has a flat oil pan and drains competely on a level surface.
Anyone that owns a Diesel knows that new oil turnes black in about an hour from the old oil left behind.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I've done the drain, 600 mile drain again with the front tire in the air, both times, then a UOA @10,000 miles with stellar results.
It ain't rocket science.

Might be interesting to try a baseline UOA at 20 miles one time to compare. Seems like two UOAs would be cheaper than dumping oil that only has 600 miles on it.

 

[userfriendly]

Thank god I don't lay awake at night worrying after an oil change

Some call that one hand surfing.

 

[userfriendly]

Might be interesting to try a baseline UOA at 20 miles one time to compare. Seems like two UOAs would be cheaper than dumping oil that only has 600 miles on it.

The slightly used oil went into a 2007 Ram 6.7 that has a billion hours on it. That one "drips out" to 13.5 litres.
Edit; The oil pan sump is more centered on the Cummins with the drain plug (3/8 drive extention) at the low point.
The oil filter is slightly bigger than the D-max's.

Edit #2; I was changing from one brand of oil to another with a different chemistry and wanted to get rid of the residuals.
Old oil; Delo 5w40 P800 Zn800. New oil Duron SAE 40 @ the CK-4 max; P 1200, Zn 1300.
Quite often PC Duron HDEOs look the same on paper as Delo 400s. It wouldn't suprise me if PC is using Oronite add packs in their HDs.

 

[Revving2Redline]

This.

I always recommend taking a reference sample when beginning a UOA program. This should be taken within the first hundred miles. At that point you will see whatever residual material there is from the previous change. There is a large variation between vehicles. I have seen vehicles that hold a full gallon of oil, and others that have very little residual oil. The reference sample solves this, and in my opinion is the larger cause of this “scenario” than any tribofilm variation. It is such an easy thing to understand your true starting point.

I always seem to get more oil out when I go over and use the ramps at my folks. It seems to get about a third of a quart more oil out. I do notice that when I started up after it's been on the ramps there's a brief one second or it's kind of a rattle but I don't get that if I change it at the dealership. The first time I used Redline Oil was a couple days after the dealership did the oil change on my new used car using synblend many years ago and I noticed that I had a slight consumption for maybe the first 1,000 or 2,000 miles and then it leveled off. It was I believe multi port fuel injection or tune port so it wasn't as complicated as the new gdi's, so that's where it came at. I've even heard of people using standard conventional and would move up to the old mobil 1tri- synthetic and the complained about that but not from Castrol. It was my guess way back then that Mobil probably had a higher quality base oil and or detergents and that's what led to that. Even now I have noticed if I try to top off or siphon out a quarter two and top off halfway through an oil change compared to completely changing it that I have less issue and it seems to level off way much faster. Oil with Esters seem to clean and sometimes on an oil analysis you can see slightly higher lead PPM.

 

[kschachn]

You'll have to get with dnewton3 on that one.

Yes I know. But even so what he advocates is not like what’s being discussed here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes I know. But even so what he advocates is not like what’s being discussed here.

dnewton3 went through all the reasons how and why a UOA can be used to track wear in his previous post in this thread. We are also discussing how to try and take the left over dirty oil ppm counts from skewing the next oil change UOA, which is what this thread was also focusing on because it was brought up as a possible factor in making it look like wear increased with a fresh oil change. A baseline UOA right after a fresh oil change is about the only simple way to do that.

If a baseline UOA is done 20 miles after the oil change it give a starting baseline to monitor the wear metals from that point forward.

 

[ZeeOSix]

@dnewton3 - you have any UOA tracking data where the new oil was baseline sampled with the mixed used oil in it, then monitored throughout the fresh OCI to see if wear actually increased right after an oil change?

 

[CarbonSteel]

It was a joke since you think that's the better baseline ... see the "lol". But it's true that it would be the best way for a home DYI to get a baseline. What else are you going to do ... tear down the whole engine?


Even if they would have taken a baseline UOA to determine the effect of the particulate left over in the remaining dirty oil, it would be a better baseline than nothing.

I started the conversation with UOAs as that is the only testing ability that I have at my disposal, but at no time am I suggesting that is how this "theory" of more wear occurs after an OC is to be proven OR disproven.

I am suggesting that unless the engine is completely flushed between runs using whatever methodology is standardized, repeatable, and verifiable, then the results are skewed from the start.

Ed Hackett showed that very plainly with simple math.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ed Hackett showed that very plainly with simple math.

Yes, and his simple math is basically showing how the left over used oil can skew the UOA results - see post #33. And taking a baseline UOA will zero out those left over particles and then show the added wear metals above that baseline. Doing a baseline UOA is certainly more accurate then estimated math.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I am suggesting that unless the engine is completely flushed between runs using whatever methodology is standardized, repeatable, and verifiable, then the results are skewed from the start.

Yeah, the left over dirty oil skews the new oil's UOA. But if you know what the skew factor is then you remove it. Staring from a baseline will show what happens beyond that baseline.

 

[userfriendly]

Yeah, the left over dirty oil skews the new oil's UOA. But if you know what the skew factor is then you remove it. Staring from a baseline will show what happens beyond that baseline.

I use the Ronald Regan trickle down method. New truck, old truck, beater. Brush pile starter fluid. (Greta dared me)

 

[CarbonSteel]

Yeah, the left over dirty oil skews the new oil's UOA. But if you know what the skew factor is then you remove it. Staring from a baseline will show what happens beyond that baseline.

Yes, and his simple math is basically showing how the left over used oil can skew the UOA results - see post #33. And taking a baseline UOA will zero out those left over particles and then show the added wear metals above that baseline. Doing a baseline UOA is certainly more accurate then estimated math.

With the variations in UOA results, this would do little other than to allow one to formulate an opinion. With that said, I am positive the wear metals carry over from OC to OC because the additive pack elements do--I can see that in my own UOAs.

I do not see where his math is estimated other than not knowing the below and it could be definitively applied to any engine when one knows:

1. the PPM per mile for wear metals
2. the amount of oil the engine holds versus what remains after an OC

In the end, nothing is going to be proven here, but the thoughts that I have posted raise enough questions that until a better testing methodology is used, color me highly skeptical that more wear happens after an OC.

It is more than a little logic defying to think that new oil creates more wear than used oil and that by changing your oil, you are going to see increased wear immediately thereafter.

At any rate, that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

With the variations in UOA results, this would do little other than to allow one to formulate an opinion. With that said, I am positive the wear metals carry over from OC to OC because the additive pack elements do--I can see that in my own UOAs.

If there is so much variation in UOA results, then why even discuss the whole topic matter and use UOAs as a wear measurent tool. Back to using multi-million dollar irradiated real time engine wear methods, which nobody here could ever do. Using that method would show a real time wear rate.

I do not see where his math is estimated other than not knowing the below and it could be definitively applied to any engine when one knows:

1. the PPM per mile for wear metals
2. the amount of oil the engine holds versus what remains after an OC

Number 1 could be determined starting from the fresh oil UOA baseline.

Number 2 is the clincher. If a baseline UOA was done 20 miles after the fresh oil change, it would zero out that unknown, regardless of how much left over dirty oil was in the engine. More accurate than any calculation for a specific engine.

In the end, nothing is going to be proven here, but the thoughts that I have posted raise enough questions that until a better testing methodology is used, color me highly skeptical that more wear happens after an OC.

If you are skeptical that no more wear happens right after an oil change, then maybe someone can do the baseline UOA vs not and see how that compares. It's better than nothing, and/or trying to calculate it.

It is more than a little logic defying to think that new oil creates more wear than used oil and that by changing your oil, you are going to see increased wear immediately thereafter.

At any rate, that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Back to the degree of tribofilm stripping theory. As I mentioned earlier ... something I don't worry about in real life, but it makes for a good engineering and test study discussion as what's happened in this thread.

 

[CarbonSteel]

If there is so much variation in UOA results, then why even discuss the whole topic matter and use UOAs as a wear measurent tool. Back to using multi-million dollar irradiated real time engine wear methods, which nobody here could ever do. Using that method would show a real time wear rate.

I never tried (or intended to) use UOA results as a wear measurement tool--but to show that if additive pack elements carry over from OC to OC, then wear metals do too and they skew the results. Which, for clarity, I am not sure what methodology was used in the 2007 test that is often quoted. Did they tear the engine down after each OC and check wear or something else? Even if they did, was the engine completely flushed to remove all contaminants before the next run of oil?

I have not seen a study using radiation to show real time wear especially on the topic of hand--increased wear after an OC. If you have one, I would love to research it.

Back to the degree of tribofilm stripping theory. As I mentioned earlier ... something I don't worry about in real life, but it makes for a good engineering and test study discussion as what's happened in this thread.

Yeah, I don't subscribe to it either because I do not believe it simply from the stance that used oil has wear metals and contaminants in it, which by their very nature contribute to additional wear versus that of new, virgin oil which could have some contaminants in it, but not to the degree of used oil. Ergo, (from my perspective) it seems illogical that new oil would cause more wear by stripping a film versus having the used oil with its contaminants in the engine.