Wear Increases After OC?

[userfriendly]

Have you read "extending the oil drain interval beyond the OEMs' should only be done with a uoa support program"?
The uoa will tell you when the additives are depleted and/or the oil is out of grade one way or the other.
An ISO particle count is for systems that might hold 30,000 gallons where changing the fluid out early cost thousands of $$.
"Wear metal" count is for identifying little problems before they become break downs and expensive repairs.
Phyical properties identify water, fuel, glycol, chemical, bio contamination and viscosity.
Some would advise to "crack a book".
edit not you Z, the post ended up here.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Keep in mind there are different methods of doing UOAs to measure wear metals ... some are more accurate than others. How do you know which ones were used in the studies, and how do you know they weren't accurate and not controlled enough?

You could always contact the Southwest Research Institute and ask if they have any info on the subject matter using irradiated parts methodology.

If the residual oil was not taken into account and/or some type of reset done, as well as extreme controls being exercised, the result is guesswork at best and this would be case even with a lab like Polaris who is fully ISO certified and uses all of the latest ASTM testing methodologies.

If UOAs were the basis, there are too many variables and it gives credence to what I have been saying since my first post in this thread--without knowing if the engines were reset, there is an inherent plausibility the initial spike and inferred increase of wear is not due true wear.

We may never know without a proper study, but I am fairly certain there are more than a few raised eyebrows based upon this thread.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Have you read "extending the oil drain interval beyond the OEMs' should only be done with a uoa support program"?
The uoa will tell you when the additives are depleted and/or the oil is out of grade one way or the other.
An ISO particle count is for systems that might hold 30,000 gallons where changing the fluid out early cost thousands of $$.
"Wear metal" count is for identifying little problems before they become break downs and expensive repairs.
Phyical properties identify water, fuel, glycol, chemical, bio contamination and viscosity.
Some would advise to "crack a book".
edit not you Z, the post ended up here.

Not sure who this is for?

 

[userfriendly]

Not sure who this is for?

Its not addressed to anyone. If DN3 can vent steam every now and then, so can I.

In my 50s I was a narcissist. Ten years later a curmudgeon. I post to nobody now, because if anybody else existed I wouldn't be a solipsist.
And that my friend, is my sardonic sense of humor.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If the residual oil was not taken into account and/or some type of reset done, as well as extreme controls being exercised, the result is guesswork at best and this would be case even with a lab like Polaris who is fully ISO certified and uses all of the latest ASTM testing methodologies.

How do you know without seeing a formal controlled test report? Maybe the residual left over really doesn't matter the longer the OCI goes because it vanishes into the noise. Like said before, a baseline UOA on the fresh oil change will tell you what impact it has when mixed with the new oil. I mean if 12 oz of old oil with 10 ppm is mixed with 5 quarts of new oil what do you think the measured Fe ppm would be? Not barely detectable IMO. A rough calculation would be 1 ppm or less. If it was mixed with 8 qts it would definitely be in the noise level.

I don't think anyone has posted this BITOG thread as a reference to the subject. See post #12 about SAE study 2003-01-3119, that used radioactive tracer methodology.

Also from post #29 in the link:
"What I took from the paper was that the scavenging of the antiwear layer from the metal caused a higher level of wear until the new antiwear agents from the fresh oil were able to lay down their protective coating. That is what causes the spike in wear initially, and then a return to a more flat wear trend as time went on. "

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

If UOAs were the basis, there are too many variables and it gives credence to what I have been saying since my first post in this thread--without knowing if the engines were reset, there is an inherent plausibility the initial spike and inferred increase of wear is not due true wear.

We may never know without a proper study, but I am fairly certain there are more than a few raised eyebrows based upon this thread.

You keep discounting UOAs ... yet in the beginning of this thread you tied to use them to conclude that left over elements in the old oil skewed the UOA of the next oil change. So is that claim discounted too because UOAs are not good enough for any of that either if it's not good enough for anything else it measures.

 

[CarbonSteel]

How do you know without seeing a formal controlled test report? Maybe the residual left over really doesn't matter the longer the OCI goes because it vanishis into the noise. Like said before, a baseline UOA on the fresh oil change will tell you what impact it has when mixed with the new oil.

I don't think anyone has posted this BITOG thread as a reference to the subject. See post #12 about SAE study 2003-01-3119, that used radioactive tracer methodology.

Also from post #29 in the link:
"What I took from the paper was that the scavenging of the antiwear layer from the metal caused a higher level of wear until the new antiwear agents from the fresh oil were able to lay down their protective coating. That is what causes the spike in wear initially, and then a return to a more flat wear trend as time went on. "

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

You keep discounting UOAs ... yet in the beginning of this thread you tied to use them to conclude that left over elements in the old oil skewed the UOA of the next oil change. So is that claim discounted too because UOAs are not good enough for any of that either if it's not good enough for anything else it measures.

I don't know without seeing a formal test result.

Helluva stretch between showing that additive pack elements and wear metals carry over between OCs in a UOA and attempting to use a UOA to measure wear rates, don't you think?

I do question using a UOA to establish wear rates, I do not question showing the PPM of elements and wear metals.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Helluva stretch between showing that additive pack elements and wear metals carry over between OCs in a UOA and attempting to use a UOA to measure wear rates, don't you think?

I do question using a UOA to establish wear rates, I do not question showing the PPM of elements and wear metals.

Did you read the link I gave above in post #105? Used radioactive tracer methodology and someone who bought a read the full SAE paper makes it sound like new oil removes some of the previous tribofilm and increased wear rates were measured. Maybe you should buy that SAE paper and let us know if he was right in his description of the testing.

If you don't question a UOA on the accurately showing the wear metals, then it boils down to methodology. Someone who regularly drives their car in mostly the same way, uses the same oil & filter brands/models, and changes oil at about the same OCI could do some at home testing and determine if the wear rate actually increases right after an oil change and then reduces as the miles increase on the oil.

Take a baseline UOA #1 at 20 miles into the new oil change to account for the left over dirty oil, and then do UOAs #2 & #3 at 500 and 1000 miles to look for the wear rate spike. Then UOA #4 thru #7 every 3K miles until 10K miles and look at the data. Use a the same good UOA lab ... find out who uses the most accurate method for wear metals. If the baseline UOA is done, then that skewing effect is accounted for, and the UOAs at ever 3K will show if the wear rate decreases as the miles pile on. Otherwise, contract the SwRI to do some radioactive tracer methodology testing for big bucks, lol.

UOA 1 - Baseline zero to remove old oil ppm skew.
UOA 2 - 500 miles looking for wear rate spike.
UOA 3 - 1000 miles looking for wear rate spike.
UOA 5 - At 4000 miles.
UOA 6 - At 7000 miles.
UOA 7 - At 10000 miles.

 

[CarbonSteel]

What makes you think, or what technical evidence/info do you have that proves one part of the UOA is more accurate than the other parts?

Did you read the link I gave above? Used radioactive tracer methodology and someone who bought a read the full SAE paper makes it sound like new oil removes some of the previous tribofilm and increased wear rates were measured. Maybe you should buy that SAE paper and let us know if he was right in his description of the testing.

You seem to be suggesting that I am conveniently disregarding parts of the UOA while trusting others. So to that end, show me where in a UOA the wear rates are stated. I have never seen it listed. Oh sure, you can divide the Fe PPM by the miles or vice-versa, but is that the wear rate and if so, wear rate of what and against what?

If the UOA lab is fully accredited and uses current ASTM testing methodologies, I do not dispute that any part or parts are more or less accurate than another--that has never been a question nor have I stated or suggested that.

I am saying that if a UOA was used to develop wear rates and subsequently to establish that wear rates increase after OCs, then the words aren't worth the paper it's written on.

I have not had a chance to read the link. It's next on the list.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You seem to be suggesting that I am conveniently disregarding parts of the UOA while trusting others. So to that end, show me where in a UOA the wear rates are stated. I have never seen it listed. Oh sure, you can divide the Fe PPM by the miles or vice-versa, but is that the wear rate and if so, wear rate of what and against what?

You have to do a regimented UOA "program" like I outlined above. It would take about 7 UOAs over a 10K OCI like the example I gave to see what's going on.

If the UOA lab is fully accredited and uses current ASTM testing methodologies, I do not dispute that any part or parts are more or less accurate than another--that has never been a question nor have I stated or suggested that.

I am saying that if a UOA was used to develop wear rates and subsequently to establish that wear rates increase after OCs, then the words aren't worth the paper it's written on.

How do you know or conclude that without proving them wrong with other test data or paying a million dollars of your own money to hire a test lab to prove otherwise. You just have a notion that UOAs can't be used to track wear rates, and nothing will change your mind it seems, not even dnewton3's inputs, who has more UOA background and experience than anyone here.

I have not had a chance to read the link. It's next on the list.

You probably should.

 

[userfriendly]

I thought that the tribofilm was removed during cold starts and rebuilt when the oil reached a temperature that activated
the additive pack. Yes, no, maybe? I read it on the internet. I am not a robot. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy?

Shear- I read on the web, is highest on the cylinder walls during high loads and rpm somewhere between elastohydrodynamic lubrication
and full metal contact. How hot does the oil get at that instant? High enough to layer up the sacrifium castrati again, only for
a repeat operation on the next cold start.

So post #29 in the link has nothing to do with fresh oil.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I thought that the tribofilm was removed during cold starts and rebuilt when the oil reached a temperature that activated
the additive pack. Yes, no, maybe? I read it on the internet. I am not a robot. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

There is a heat activation factor that builds the tribofilm layer, and I think the tribofilm layer also builds up on the surface as the miles pile on. It doesn't have to build up from scratch from every cold start. That's what it seems from the info I've seen.

 

[CarbonSteel]

You have to do a regimented UOA "program" like I outlined above. It would take about 7 UOAs over a 10K OCI like the example I gave to see what's going on.


How do you know or conclude that without proving them wrong with other test data or paying a million dollars of your own money to hire a test lab to prove otherwise. You just have a notion that UOAs can't be used to track wear rates, and nothing will change your mind it seems, not even dnewton3's inputs, who has more UOA background and experience than anyone here.


You probably should.

It would take WAY more than 7 UOAs to determine anything and I'm not the only one here who says that UOAs cannot be used to determine wear rates, so this is not just my stance.

As I said, we will not prove or disprove anything here. None of us are equipped to do so, but speaking for me, I remain highly skeptical that wear rates truly increase after an OC, but that is just me and I am good to agree to disagree.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So post #29 in the link has nothing to do with fresh oil.

This part does. It sounds like they did all kinds of tests on new and used oil, but from what he's saying in more than one post in that thread is that the study seemed to say that new oil caused increase wear rates, and it was measured with radioactive tracer methods.

"If I understand the test correctly this would mean that at some point the deposits had to be removed at some point. Considering that the cam lobes were cleaned with mineral spirits I would think that "detergent action" alone would have removed most if not all of the deposits in the first place. What I took from the paper was that the scavenging of the antiwear layer from the metal caused a higher level of wear until the new antiwear agents from the fresh oil were able to lay down their protective coating. That is what causes the spike in wear initially, and then a return to a more flat wear trend as time went on."

 

[userfriendly]

There is a heat activation factor that builds the tribofilm layer, and I think the tribofilm layer also builds up on the surface as the miles pile on. It doesn't have to build up from scratch from every cold start. That's what it seems from the info I've seen.
[/QUOTE
Or conversely, the tribofilm is removed in its entirety every time the oil is changed and has to rebuild from scratch.
Niether one being a hill I'd want to die on.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It would take WAY more than 7 UOAs to determine anything and I'm not the only one here who says that UOAs cannot be used to determine wear rates, so this is not just my stance.

It's been said that UOAs can't be used for some kinds of monitoring, like for instance what the real impact on wear is from using a way too low viscosity in an engine not designed for it and major damage starts to happen, and using only one UOA to look for the impact of the thinner oil. It would have to take a regimented UOA sampling plan to better see what's going on. There might be an uptick in the wear metals while there could also be way more wear going on than indicated by the UOA because of the UOA particle size sensitivity limitations.

There were other threads with an example given where there was more damage going on than just normal wear, and the UOA only showed an uptick in wear metals that may or many not have raised a red flag right away. The wear rate kept rising with continued UOAs, and that is when they inspected for a cause. Then when the internals of the machine and the oil filter were visually inspected, much larger, and lots of particles that a UOA could not detect were seen. So yeah, just like dnewton3 explained, there are limitations. But simply saying a UOA program can't track wear rate isn't totally true for all situations.

As I said, we will not prove or disprove anything here. None of us are equipped to do so, but speaking for me, I remain highly skeptical that wear rates truly increase after an OC, but that is just me and I am good to agree to disagree.

You should buy that SAE paper talked about in the thread I linked. It might change your mind.

 

[userfriendly]

It would take WAY more than 7 UOAs to determine anything and I'm not the only one here who says that UOAs cannot be used to determine wear rates, so this is not just my stance.

As I said, we will not prove or disprove anything here. None of us are equipped to do so, but speaking for me, I remain highly skeptical that wear rates truly increase after an OC, but that is just me and I am good to agree to disagree.

Nope, it's not just you.
You have a constitutional right to be skeptical, form your own opinions and agree to disagree.
Good men and women stand on the wall ......
If not for the separation of church and state, container ships full of TGMO would sail off the edge.

 

[Nesterenko]

It would take WAY more than 7 UOAs to determine anything and I'm not the only one here who says that UOAs cannot be used to determine wear rates, so this is not just my stance.

As I said, we will not prove or disprove anything here. None of us are equipped to do so, but speaking for me, I remain highly skeptical that wear rates truly increase after an OC, but that is just me and I am good to agree to disagree.

So you don't agree that wear rates decrease as OCI's extend out in accordance with the SAE paper either?

 

[CarbonSteel]

So you don't agree that wear rates decrease as OCI's extend out in accordance with the SAE paper either?

I question how that conclusion was determined and if based upon UOAs, then yes, I do not agree simply due to the inability for a UOA to accurately measure or determine wear rates. If some other methodology was used, then I am open to believing it

 

[kschachn]

I question how that conclusion was determined and if based upon UOAs, then yes, I do not agree simply due to the inability for a UOA to accurately measure or determine wear rates. If some other methodology was used, then I am open to believing it

Agreed. It's not the way it's done by anyone who wishes to properly and accurately measure wear. There is no ASTM or ISO test for comparative wear via spectrographic analysis, and there is a valid technical reason for that.

 

[dnewton3]

I question how that conclusion was determined and if based upon UOAs, then yes, I do not agree simply due to the inability for a UOA to accurately measure or determine wear rates. If some other methodology was used, then I am open to believing it

I don't agree with your theory, but I'm willing to listen to your explanation in hopes of understanding.
This is not a taunt; I'm genuinely interested in your statement and the basis for your logic.

Please explain why you think the UOA cannot accurately measure wear.
(note ... "wear rates" are not determined by a machine; they are deduced by mathematical formula)
I want to understand why you believe UOAs cannot determine wear.

When I state that "wear rates drop as the OCIs mature", this is the process I use to determine that phenomenon:
- collect large data package(s) regarding a particular enginen series (Ford 4.6L 2v engine, for example)
- delineate the data into groups for the desired OCI intervals (3k, 5k, 7.5k, 10k, 15k)
- use statistical analysis tools to determine the average and standard deviations, p values, ANOVA, etc
- observe and report results of analysis

Now, you have to understand that "wear" and "wear rates" are not the same thing. Determining wear is a matter of choosing a method to quantify the material removed/altered on a component. Wear rates are a means of assessing that wear over a period of time. What the macro-data tells me, time after time, without fail, is that wear rates drop as the OCIs mature. This phenomenon is consistent in every single engine series I've ever studied. No exceptions.


So could you please explain why you think UOAs cannot determine wear?