What Happens When Oil Changes Are Ignored, Poor Care?

[Nesterenko]

I respect his Oil 101 articles with the multiple huge paragraphs. After googling HTHS wear graph, that 1 picture says a thousand words.
When HTHS drops below 2.6, engine wear starts to increase exponentially.

This thread about extended oil change intervals causing less wear really makes no sence.
As the additive package disappears, and sheering/fuel dilution has thinned the oil to a grade below the starting viscosity
(Ex: 0W-20 becoming a 0W-16), and oil dirty's due to large # of particles that the oil filter may be letting through,
I can't image less wear in that scenario then if you had clean oil at proper viscosity with a strong additive package.

People are not advocating for running the oil with depleted additive packages. TBN readings of 2-3 don't necessarily need dumping. Only with the "cheap insurance" mentality would those numbers be dangerous.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Have you looked at a run of multiple extended OCIs to see the wear patterns?

Within the context of what a UOA can measure, here are all of the runs I did in my 2010 FX4 from birth until I sold it at 160K miles. Look at the iron generation per mile in the shorter OCIs versus the longer ones. Most times, there is less iron per mile in the long OCIs versus the short ones.

2010 FX4 Iron Generation

Putting the wear rate in miles per ppm would make it easier to compare - ie, 800 miles/ppm would mean less wear rate than 500 miles/ppm.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The protection factor is adequate.

The belief that one needs a thicker oil to provide excellent west protection is countered by the numerous reports on here of 20 and 16 grades showing stellar wear meta numbers. In fact the 0W-8 thread report is stellar and that is over 20,000 miles.

As has been said many times by many people ... a Blackstone UOA isn't really a good measure of engine wear. There have been examples given. If the iron ppm increases somewhat, but not at an "alarming" level, but the oil filter has a bunch of new metal flakes in it, then the UOA didn't really do jack to show the actual wear going on - like when running "0W-5" in an engine not specifically designed for that thin of oil. Typical UOAs can only see a narrow slice of the particulate, and extreme wear particles are typically out of that range of measurement.

 

[Fahrvergnügen]

It cannot be all modern engines. Anecdotely speaking, if that were true we'd have many many engines failing at lower mileage. With the exception of some bad designs in modern engines, we are seeing engine longevity longer than we ever have in history.

No no and no! Nissan KA24E & KA24DE 500,000 plus miles. Nissan VQ35DE 500,000 plus miles.
Nissan VG30DE 500,000 plus miles.
Honda D16, D17, K20, B16-B20. Toyota 22R,
Mazda MZR, GM 4.3 liter 500,000 plus miles
GM 5.7 liter 500,000 plus miles
VW ALH TDI 800,000 plus miles
Ford in-line 6 300 cubic inch 500,000 plus miles
I can can go on and on, the older stuff never seen half the problems the new stuff does pal. This list is just a few off the top of my head. The new stuff isn’t as good as the old stuff.

 

[The Critic]

As has been said many times by many people ... a Blackstone UOA isn't really a good measure of engine wear. There have been examples given. If the iron ppm increases somewhat, but not at an "alarming" level, but the oil filter has a bunch of new metal flakes in it, then the UOA didn't really do jack to show the actual wear going on - like when running "0W-5" in an engine not specifically designed for that thin of oil. Typical UOAs can only see a narrow slice of the particulate, and extreme wear particles are typically out of that range of measurement.

I’ve always said that UOA’s are a good tool for identifying contamination issues, but for measuring wear? Eh, pointless.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Putting the wear rate in miles per ppm would make it easier to compare - ie, 800 miles/ppm would mean less wear rate than 500 miles/ppm.

Maybe. but just as easy to look at the numbers of iron and see the delta--but now updated to show miles per PPM iron.

 

[wpod]

Is that unique to Toyota or all engines? Is it a bad design or are the 10K OCIs causing wear? Are the oil filters premium or rock catchers? Are the engines DI or MPI? What oils were used in those engines? Were the air filters maintained?

Plenty of vehicles that run 10K OCIs and do not have issues. I had a 2010 FX4 with a 5.4L in it that starting at 100K miles I ran 10K-17K OCIs and it saw heavy towing for 45% of the 160K miles that I put on it. Zero oil consumption between OCIs.

I do not think you can make a general statement that "something that happens to the oil between 5k and 10k where it shears/get dirtier/additive package gets weaker, etc" and have it universally apply to every engine--far too many of them with 10K OCIs for far too many years for that to be true.

You posted a most incredible UOA history on that P/U,, ienjoyed it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Maybe. but just as easy to look at the numbers of iron and see the delta--but now updated to show miles per PPM iron.

Nice ... I can instantly see which UOAs show the least wear rate vs the most wear rate with an easier format to distinguish the rates per miles used.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Nice ... I can instantly see which UOAs show the least wear rate vs the most wear rate.

Also (for that truck) I always saw a slight spike when towing, which was about 71,000 miles of the 158,000 I put on it. It was a good truck, just could not pull the next trailer I bought. I traded it on the 2015 PSD I had for a few years.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

I’ve always said that UOA’s are a good tool for identifying contamination issues, but for measuring wear? Eh, pointless.

Sometimes I wonder if we realize just exactly how small , just how tiny the amounts of things , like the Parts Per Millions etc.... these type of analysis are reporting.

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

Imagine walking 300 miles on a million mile walk. It really is a small thing.

 

[FishFry]

Film thickness is limited by bearing clearance - so you can only work within that limitation anyway.
Once the assembly is "floating" on an oil film, there is basically no wear - no mater what the viscosity (or age of oil) is - so it is only floating or not, nothing between it.
Chemical protection kicks in when the film fails or isn't there yet (cold start/oil starvation/clogged cannels/stress etc.) - but it can only do so much.
Modern Engines have much tighter specs and clearances, so the film is thinner in the first place, and you may need more chemical help.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Film thickness is limited by bearing clearance - so you can only work within that limitation anyway.
Once the assembly is "floating" on an oil film, there is basically no wear - no mater what the viscosity (or age of oil) is - so it is only floating or not, nothing between it.

If a journal bearing has 0.002 inch clearance, then if the journal was perfectly centered in the bearing while rotating, it would have 0.001 inch of clearance around the entire circumference - 0.001 inch is 25.4 microns. Centering the journal is as much film thickness as that bearing could ever produce, and the higher the viscosity and the RPM, the more centered the journal inside the bearing wants to be.

But the point of this response is that if the viscosity is too low, which can be impacted by many factors and driving conditions, then the MOFT can get very low and even easily go to zero, which obviously causes more wear - film strengh (AF/AW) or not. So to believe that all journal bearings either "float or don't float regardless of viscosity" isn't really true. Obtaining "full bearing float" with a MOFT always well above zero is not always guaranteed the thinner the oil becomes.

Chemical protection kicks in when the film fails or isn't there yet (cold start/oil starvation/clogged cannels/stress etc.) - but it can only do so much.

Yes, the MOFT can go to zero from all kind of things, including the oil becoming too thin in use. That's why a bit more viscosity to achieve more MOFT headroom is the easy and no cost way to mitigate wear, and not to rely on the AF/AW tribofilm any more than necessary

Modern Engines have much tighter specs and clearances, so the film is thinner in the first place, and you may need more chemical help.

The modern engines I've studied don't really have any tighter journal bearings than engines 50 years ago. A better way to migrate wear with a double-edged sword is by using a bit higher viscosity. All modern big name oils have a pretty good AF/AW package, so bumping the viscosity helps put a bit less stress on the film strength (AF/AW tribofilm) - it's really meant as the secondary wear migrator after viscosity. MOFT headroom never hurt anything but maybe a hair of fuel mileage. Some people (and CAFE) care more about that hair of fuel mileage, and others care more about wear protection.

 

[kschachn]

Can’t compare and old style engine to modern.

That has nothing to do with it. It’s showing that OCI is highly dependent on engine design.

 

[kschachn]

If a journal bearing has 0.002 inch clearance, then if the journal was perfectly centered in the bearing while rotating, it would have 0.001 inch of clearance around the entire circumference - 0.001 inch is 25.4 microns. Centering the journal is as much film thickness as that bearing could ever produce, and the higher the viscosity and the RPM, the more centered the journal inside the bearing wants to be.

But the point of this response is that if the viscosity is too low, which can be impacted by many factors and driving conditions, then the MOFT can get very low and even easily go to zero, which obviously causes more wear - film strengh (AF/AW) or not. So to believe that all journal bearings either "float or don't float regardless of viscosity" isn't really true. Obtaining "full bearing float" with a MOFT always well above zero is not always guaranteed the thinner the oil becomes.


Yes, the MOFT can go to zero from all kind of things, including the oil becoming too thin in use. That's why a bit more viscosity to achieve more MOFT headroom is the easy and no cost way to mitigate wear, and not to rely on the AF/AW tribofilm any more than necessary


The modern engines I've studied don't really have any tighter journal bearings than engines 50 years ago. A better way to migrate wear with a double-edged sword is by using a bit higher viscosity. All modern big name oils have a pretty good AF/AW package, so bumping the viscosity helps put a bit less stress on the film strength (AF/AW tribofilm) - it's really meant as the secondary wear migrator after viscosity. MOFT headroom never hurt anything but maybe a hair of fuel mileage. Some people (and CAFE) care more about that hair of fuel mileage, and others care more about wear protection.

Thank you for the technical explanation, again.

 

[FishFry]

The modern engines I've studied don't really have any tighter journal bearings than engines 50 years ago.

Well, let's say there was quite some leeway.

 

[dnewton3]

It is proven that longer OCIs (NOT STUPIDLY NEGLECTED OCIs) will reduce wear rates. That is shown with reasonable conclusion in both lab studies (the second half of the Ford/Conoco study; a part which most people don't know about because they've never paid for and read the study), as well as the immense amount of real world UOAs in my database. Two different study methods can prove the same phenomenon exists; longer OCIs reduce the wear rates. NOT less wear, but lower wear rates; don't confuse those two.

So many of you are trying to come to a singular conclusion as to what prevents wear. This is an absurd trek. Here's what contributes to control of engine wear:
- engine design (bearing and journal sizes; rpm range; rod/stroke ratio; lube system flows - both supply and return; etc)
- engine build (quality of manufacture; processes such as cylinder bore finishes; etc)
- lubricant (vis; additives; base stock; TCB; cleanliness)
- maintenance plan (OCIs; timely repairs)

Any one of these above can be more or less important than another simply depending upon the specific applications and anecdotal experiences.


The topic of this thread is "What happens when oil changes are ignored?"
One man's "ignored oil changes" may mean he didn't OCI at 5k miles, and accidentally went 6k miles. That, IMO, is not "neglect".
As with many other threas here, the words "neglect" and "poor maintenace" are not well defined. And so assumptions MUST be stated for comments to make sense.
I'm going to interpret "ignored" as meaning neglect for long periods of time; well over 25k miles for any OCI.
And "Poor Maintenance" means he didn't change the oil fitler either, for that OCI.
Under those assumptions, the engine will not fare well because neglect nearly always ends badly for the host, be it your engine, your house, your family relationships, your body ...
"Neglect" means no attention is paid to the conditions. And if you run an OCI long enough, then ANY lube and ANY engine design can be caused to fail. Period.

 

[PimTac]

As has been said many times by many people ... a Blackstone UOA isn't really a good measure of engine wear. There have been examples given. If the iron ppm increases somewhat, but not at an "alarming" level, but the oil filter has a bunch of new metal flakes in it, then the UOA didn't really do jack to show the actual wear going on - like when running "0W-5" in an engine not specifically designed for that thin of oil. Typical UOAs can only see a narrow slice of the particulate, and extreme wear particles are typically out of that range of measurement.

Nice ... I can instantly see which UOAs show the least wear rate vs the most wear rate with an easier format to distinguish the rates per miles used.

So wear rate and actual wear are two opposite things?

 

[kschachn]

Sometimes I wonder if we realize just exactly how small , just how tiny the amounts of things , like the Parts Per Millions etc.... these type of analysis are reporting.

True but it doesn’t take a lot. Plus the real damage doesn’t even show up on a UOA.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

True but it doesn’t take a lot. Plus the real damage doesn’t even show up on a UOA.

YEP.