I learned about oil changes the hard way. I knew nothing about the mechanics of a car. I had bought a VW bug when it was getting dark from some shady characters. I loaded up everything I owned and headed off to my Sr year of college. 40 miles from school the car quit on I-95. My roommates dad owned a gas station and he had rebuilt engines with his dad. Neither of us knew anything about VW’s. We pulled out the engine with a 2x4 and a big rock. The oil filter screen was full of aluminum foil. It was the main bearings destroyed due to not enough oil changes. From that point on I was anal about oil changes. Getting stranded on I-95 due to a blown engine makes an lasting impression .
What Happens When Oil Changes Are Ignored, Poor Care?
- Thread starter AEHaas
- Start date
Also don't put aluminum foil in your sump.
Not sure what your point is, going to have to elaborate. Wear is wear, and total cumulative wear over time depends on the wear rates going on over time.
Last edited:
.
That's a pretty large bearing clearance range on the large end (0.0045"). What engine is that?Well, let's say there was quite some leeway.
Here's the specs for a Ford Coyote 5.0L V8 ... which BTW, has been speced by Ford to use anything from 5W-30 to 5W-50 in these clearances. Regardless of the bearing clearance, more viscosity will give more film thickness with all other factors effecting MOFT held constant.
dnewton3
Staff member
I disagree. There are most certainly times when "real damage" shows up in a UOA. Plenty of examples to prove it.
UOAs will NOT see a catastrophic event that is acute in nature. If a con-rod goes thru the crankcase, timing belt snaps and causes valve interferrence, etc. Those kinds of events are unpredictable.
What a UOA can see is the tell-tale signs of wear escalation; above that which would be considered "normal". UOAs cannot see ALL wear particles; only those 5um and smaller. But, as a representation of total wear, the % seen in the UOA is an implication of what's going on. It's a partial view of wear. Here is a perfect example ...
This series of UOAs was telling the owner something for sure, and it was spot on correct.
UOAs can see chronic problems develope. But not acute ones.
I will agree that not all UOAs will catch all problems; that's true. But here's what I also know ...
If you never do UOAs, you will never even have a chance know if something is wrong in the early stages.
By the time an engine is making horrid noises and funny smells and missing fluids, it's already too late.
UOAs give you a chance to find a problem in it's infancy. It's not an assurance that it will find all problems, but it most certainly is a higher probability of finding the problems than not looking at all!
Finding wear problems is a function of taking UOAs, and how often they are done. The more frequent you take UOAs, the more likely you'll catch a problem sooner rather than later, or too late. UOAs are not guaranteed to find issues, but they MOST CERTAINLY improve the odds of finding issues.
It is inaccurate and disengenuous to say that " ... real damage doesn't even show up on a UOA". That is patently untrue and easily proven wrong.
Here's a slew of other examples:
Newsletters | Blackstone Laboratories
www.blackstone-labs.com
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Bearings are not the only component in engines. There are three lubricant operating regimes in an engine:
1. Hydrodynamic (which is what you are describing)
2. Boundary (this is where additives are doing the work, controlling wear in what would otherwise be metal-on-metal)
3. Mixed (combination of the above two)
As viscosity has been reduced, more components have shifted from #1 to #2 and #3. This has resulted in greater focus on the role, and effectiveness, of the additive package in controlling and reducing wear when components are operating in these realms.
No, they don't. This is a common misconception. While engines that spec say 0W-8 through 0W-16 might have clearances reduced somewhat, along with wider bearing dimensions, engines that call for 0W-20, 5W-20...etc have the same standard suite of clearances that have been called for since the 1950's and 60's. The 5W-20 spec'd Modular was no tighter than the 1960's vintage Windsor for example.
That was an obvious change in wear metals, but there have also been examples where the rise wasn't anything near that, and when the machine/engine was torn into there was visible metal flakes in the filter and laying inside.
This machine's tin level went from 2 to 7 ppm, and when they opened the filter and the machine there was wear debris all over the place. The bearings were very worn and damaged.
Open in Chrome or Edge to see the photos, they don't show up in Firefox for some reason.
Understanding the Limitations of Oil Analysis
Some sealants give false positives of silicates and elemental metals measurements with an ICP spectroscopy are limited to a certain range of particle size, usually four to seven microns. Generally, labs will tell you that parts per million (ppm) numbers in the one or two range can be nuisance...
reliabilityweb.com
CONCLUSION
"This illustrates once again the value of routine oil analysis in identifying potential problems. It also shows a weakness of oil analysis, in this case by the low ppm of tin listed on the report versus the amount of babbitt found in the bearing reservoir. In this circumstance, the trend information was much more valuable than an alarm limit since most programs and labs would not flag this as a problem."
Also, member @TiGeo had a failure in his VW engine (cam chain and tensioner related), and the wear metals were trending up (he kept lots of UOAs on the car), but it wasn't some big alarming rise. He heard engine noises going on, which pushed for further investigation. If the engine wasn't making any noises, it could have been ignored much longer because the UOAs weren't into big red flag territory at that point, but the was definitely an engine problem going on. The damage was more that what one would believe based on the UOA wear metal.
Last edited:
The wear metals change may be small enough that someone might think it's in the noise level, or caused by switching oils, use conditions, etc. UOAs would have to be done religiously and often like you say to get any monitoring accuracy at all.
Last edited:
Correct - an uptick in the trend but I had aluminum glitter in my filter from the broken tensioner sitting between the timing cover and the block. I should note Blackstone mentioned it with the first UOA with higher aluminum than normal and nailed the issue with the tensioner and timing cover...I probably talked to them and told them I had a timing-chain area rattle however. This was all while using HPL oil so that's the source of the higher silicon.That was an obvious change in wear metals, but there have also been examples where the rise wasn't anything near that, and when the machine/engine was torn into there was visible metal flakes in the filter and laying inside.
This machine's tin level went from 2 to 7 ppm, and when they opened the filter and the machine there was wear debris all over the place. The bearings were very worn and damaged.
Open in Chrome or Edge to see the photos, they don't show up in Firefox for some reason.
Understanding the Limitations of Oil Analysis
Some sealants give false positives of silicates and elemental metals measurements with an ICP spectroscopy are limited to a certain range of particle size, usually four to seven microns. Generally, labs will tell you that parts per million (ppm) numbers in the one or two range can be nuisance...
CONCLUSION
"This illustrates once again the value of routine oil analysis in identifying potential problems. It also shows a weakness of oil analysis, in this case by the low ppm of tin listed on the report versus the amount of babbitt found in the bearing reservoir. In this circumstance, the trend information was much more valuable than an alarm limit since most programs and labs would not flag this as a problem."
Also, member @TiGeo had a failure in his VW engine (cam chain and tensioner related), and the wear metals were trending up (he kept lots of UOAs on the car), but it wasn't some big alarming rise. He heard engine noises going on, which pushed for further investigation. If the engine wasn't making any noises, it could have been ignored much longer because the UOAs weren't into big red flag territory at that point, but the was definitely an engine problem going on. The damage was more that what one would believe based on the UOA wear metal.
The foil was what was left of the rod bearings.
1950s Chevy 235
Well I posted the clearances of a 1950s engine and ZeeOSix the specs of a modern Coyote, sooooo.....
1965 Ford 289 V8 bearing clearances ... pretty tight, even tighter than the Coyote on the small side of the clearances.
Crank specs for 289
www.fordmuscleforums.com
Good engine. Had one in my '67 Cougar.1965 Ford 289 V8 bearing clearances ... pretty tight, even tighter than the Coyote on the small side of the clearances.
Crank specs for 289
View attachment 139709
This
dnewton3
Staff member
....Understanding the Limitations of Oil Analysis
Some sealants give false positives of silicates and elemental metals measurements with an ICP spectroscopy are limited to a certain range of particle size, usually four to seven microns. Generally, labs will tell you that parts per million (ppm) numbers in the one or two range can be nuisance...
CONCLUSION
"This illustrates once again the value of routine oil analysis in identifying potential problems. It also shows a weakness of oil analysis, ....
I don't disagree with you Zee, and I clearly made statements of qualification that said not all UOAs will catch all problems. Unless I misunderstand you, you would probably agree that UOAs are not infallable, but they certainly improve the odds of finding a problem. They are not 100% able to find all issues, but they are also not worthless in finding issues.
This is what I have a problem with; I take exception and disagree when kschachn says this:
Taken in context, that is a statement of finality; a claim that is absolute, without qualificaiton of exemptions. The inference being that UOAs would never find "real damage" as it develops. That statement is 100%, without any doubt, wrong; I linked a path to see where MANY UOAs did indeed find or confirm real damage as it was happening as proof that his statement is wrong.kschachn said:
TiGeo's example is fair and just; UOAs didn't catch his issue. But there are plenty of examples from Blackstone's Newsletters which show problems were discovered in UOAs that never manifested elsewhere, or proceeded discovery by other sensory means. The point being, UOAs work well some of the time, but not all time. However the same can be said of other analysis tools; they occasionally miss stuff too.
Finding equipment problems is a function of how hard you look, how often you look, and what tools you look with. Using UOAs will not assure you that you'll discover a problem, but they are most certainly proven to improve the odds of finding a problem. Here's what we can do to find an equipment problem ...
- look for visual clues (leaks and other abnormalities)
- listen for audible clues (clunking, grinding, squeals, chirps and other abnormalities)
- feel for tangible clues (vibration)
- analyze with high-tech tools (thermal sensing guns, non-primary-order vibration sensors)
- do UOAs to track your unique equipment history and compare/constrast against known "good" examples (wear metal abnormalities)
- track fluid consumption (loss, or transfer of lube and coolant for example)
Some of these are outside the cost and skill levels of the average Joe. But some are easily done in the garage at home. UOAs are not the only means of finding "real damage"; they are but one of several. UOAs work well; not always, but often enough to make them one of the viable tools to find problems. UOAs also offer a distinct advantage in that they are objective and not subjetive. They are also relatively inexpensive relative to other costs such as uber-expensive high-tect tools or engine tear-downs. As you add "tools" to your analysis, you improve the likelihood that you'll discover problems as they develop. It's not that you can be 100% sure; it's much more akin to simply improving your odds of accuracy. UOAs are not going to be without error at all times, but they are also not 100% worthless either. At times, they will be the lead indicator, other times not. That is true of all those "tools" above.
I believe that kschachn's statement is incorrect because it misleads one in a path of totality, as if UOAs can never find real damage. That is utterly wrong; UOAs are proven to find real damage. Just not all the time.
But they did catch the issue clearly with rising Al values so in my case (post #130), my UOA regimen on that particular car based on it's HD use is a worthwhile investment. I would never have cut my filter open without that BS report pointing to increased aluminum beyond my normal. So to me, my UOAs and how I use them (every time, plotted) was v. valuable tool for assessing the health of my engine. Beyond that, they are good for looking at viscosity break-down/fuel-dilution.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You posted what appears to be a shot from an FSM or rebuild guide, which shows the same minimum clearance. The higher upper limit mentioned shows increased tolerances over the Coyote, which, given the limits of production at the time, really shouldn't be surprising.
This is the allowable range for a 1985 Ford Windsor:
Rod Bearings:
0.0008 to 0.0026 in
Main bearings:
0.0008 to 0.0026 in
Desired is a bit tighter with the upper range at 0.0015.
Was that the green of that year? We had the exact car in a small rental fleet in west end Ric. I washed them and drove them to dry them off. LOL Used to cruise through Willow Lawn shopping center.
Similar threads
