Wear is wear...right?
- Thread starter deeter16317
- Start date
- Status
We had a Cat in a mobile compressor...it was 37 gallons. I think it was a 489CI engine.
Yes, generally the 3500 series is in the 45 to 57 gallons of engine oil, depending on application of the engine. However, in the 3508's case in a D11R, it certainly is not over-capacity. The engine oil is stressed significantly even in a 250 hour oil drain interval. And yet the same engine in a CAT 777 haul truck with the same oil capacity, the oil is not stressed in the least, able to easily go 500 hours between drains. And each engine will show correspondingly signature iron levels in used oil analysis...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
George Morrison, STLE CLS
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
Irrespective, I was drawing the correlation that this mine DOES indeed experience engine life 2X the CAT norm... And that other mines I work with do not have even ONE engine oil analysis reflecting an iron level of less than 10 ppm and do NOT experience 2X the norm engine/component life...
But George, I think the sensible answer is that others get 1/2 of your life expectancy ..and that you're getting, within some drift +/-, ideal life expectancy; essentially due to neglect and/or other introduction of vectors that are stifling normal engine life span. Stinky Peterson (Mark Mathys = RIP) showed how bulk product contamination cost one mining operation $500k in overhaul costs and how CAT BUTLER found the cause.
Doug Hillary clearly demonstrated that his fleet and customers fleets, that he maintained, had no significant difference in overhaul or top up rates with him using centrifuges and synthetic oil, and his customers using bypass filters and conventional. He saved downtime for maintenance. This wasn't the case with transmission and final drive units ..but with engines it was clearly apparent that there was no magic oil or method to longer engine life. If there was, even if it cost a bundle, it would be widely adopted.
Quote:
This is why I so dislike posting or sharing real world information on this site! One gets nit-picked to death for even sharing real world data...
Don't get hung up on this. You can't seriously expect 100% of the people to just take anything said on the internet as valid ..especially if it's from a source of one. You've also got to effectively handle any challenges to your assertions. This IS going to happen. You take it way too personally.
Irrespective, I was drawing the correlation that this mine DOES indeed experience engine life 2X the CAT norm... And that other mines I work with do not have even ONE engine oil analysis reflecting an iron level of less than 10 ppm and do NOT experience 2X the norm engine/component life...
But George, I think the sensible answer is that others get 1/2 of your life expectancy ..and that you're getting, within some drift +/-, ideal life expectancy; essentially due to neglect and/or other introduction of vectors that are stifling normal engine life span. Stinky Peterson (Mark Mathys = RIP) showed how bulk product contamination cost one mining operation $500k in overhaul costs and how CAT BUTLER found the cause.
Doug Hillary clearly demonstrated that his fleet and customers fleets, that he maintained, had no significant difference in overhaul or top up rates with him using centrifuges and synthetic oil, and his customers using bypass filters and conventional. He saved downtime for maintenance. This wasn't the case with transmission and final drive units ..but with engines it was clearly apparent that there was no magic oil or method to longer engine life. If there was, even if it cost a bundle, it would be widely adopted.
Quote:
This is why I so dislike posting or sharing real world information on this site! One gets nit-picked to death for even sharing real world data...
Don't get hung up on this. You can't seriously expect 100% of the people to just take anything said on the internet as valid ..especially if it's from a source of one. You've also got to effectively handle any challenges to your assertions. This IS going to happen. You take it way too personally.
Buster, I have yet to see M1 spike up my Fe levels, last 10K run produced 14 ppm of Fe and blackstone said that the average of that sort is measured in 5-6k miles. For a small 1.9 that has to be revved a lot, not a bad deal.
I do lots of interstate runs @ 4000rpms for extended periods of time and I thought my UOA was going to be much worse.
45 gallons, now I see why UOA is the way to go on these monsters.
I do lots of interstate runs @ 4000rpms for extended periods of time and I thought my UOA was going to be much worse.
45 gallons, now I see why UOA is the way to go on these monsters.
"You can't seriously expect 100% of the people to just take anything said on the internet as valid ..especially if it's from a source of one. You've also got to effectively handle any challenges to your assertions. This IS going to happen. You take it way too personally."
Yup, and I tried to be gooder by being more politer than usual, when questioning some of the conclusions based upon what was presented. From my perspective it was like someone stating that 20% of a group of people had lower cholesteral, and that explained why their parents and grandparents had up to twice the life expectancy of the rest of the regional population.
Yup, and I tried to be gooder by being more politer than usual, when questioning some of the conclusions based upon what was presented. From my perspective it was like someone stating that 20% of a group of people had lower cholesteral, and that explained why their parents and grandparents had up to twice the life expectancy of the rest of the regional population.
From experience as an HET working at a CAT dealer, I think for many places contamination control is probably one of the single biggest factors on the life expectancy of an engine/related equipment/machinery. Also in relation to wear and tear of the equipment as well. One mine may be sloppy, the next may be vigilant. There is a mine in the Northwest Territories that has a five star rating from CAT. I know of a branch near where I work which you would think it would have a better CAT rating as it is in the city and has access to things the mine doesn't- it only made one star this year.
Contamination control says a lot.
Contamination control says a lot.
Quote:
Another problem with wear limits is the range of tests they cover. Traditionally, these limits have covered only wear metals and contaminants that are detected by a spectrometer. This test provides useful information, but has one major drawback: it can detect only particles smaller than eight microns (a micron is 1/1000th of a millimeter and a human hair is about 50 microns in diameter). These particles are minute; therefore it is possible for the wear limit tables to indicate normal behavior when a severe wear situation could exist with particles greater than eight microns, which cannot be viewed by the spectrometer.
Another problem with wear limits is the range of tests they cover. Traditionally, these limits have covered only wear metals and contaminants that are detected by a spectrometer. This test provides useful information, but has one major drawback: it can detect only particles smaller than eight microns (a micron is 1/1000th of a millimeter and a human hair is about 50 microns in diameter). These particles are minute; therefore it is possible for the wear limit tables to indicate normal behavior when a severe wear situation could exist with particles greater than eight microns, which cannot be viewed by the spectrometer.
- Status
Similar threads
