What Happens When Oil Changes Are Ignored, Poor Care?

[Nesterenko]

Once again the voice of reason on this topic. Aptly put Dave, thanks.

 

[Bill7]

I have witnessed two messed up engines from not changing the oil. A camaro my stupid buddy had, not changed in 35,000 miles. The oil came out like tar. A chevy pickup at work. Could not even get the darn oil to drain out. Mechanic had to pour diesel into the crankcase to get it moving. And didn't GM get a black eye a few years ago from overextending oil change intervals?

You forgot to mention the people who let their oil run dry.
I have a friend with a pickup truck, his engine had an oil consumption issue (slowly consuming oil).
He neglected to check the oil level periodically (weekly or monthly), and his engine ran dry and engine seized.

 

[Bill7]

Step 1 - Spill some nonsense confidently in a few paragraphs. The longer, the better.
Step 2 - Ignore all the correct answers or legitimate counterpoints to your original post/question/comment.
Step 3 - Ignore the rest of the posts too. Read, but don't reply. Having a discussion is unacceptable. Gaslighting is highly encouraged.

Good job. By completing Steps 1-3 you became AEHaas Junior. Next step? Go buy a Ferrari.

Aehaus is highly intelligent and has a lot of respect on the forum.
He definately is a pioneer in pushing the limits of thin oils.

I think any time he creates a thread, there ends up being 10's of pages of responses.
He seems to place very little importance on HTHS and MOFT, and he tends to focus more on faster flow of ultra thin oils and how that relates to adequate oil pressure.

He presents an argument which goes against what many people believe in. It is interesting that he shares his experiments on his own cars with the forum (like running 0W-20 in a supercar speced for 15W-50, or running 0W-5 in a Lincoln Navigator speced for 5W-30).

 

[billt460]

Hmmm I never heard of less wear with extended changes.............

Less tooth decay with fewer brushings? Just thinking out loud here.

 

[demarpaint]

So often the car that is dying early is written off because of a lack of proper oil changes. What happens? There is evidence that there is LESS wear with extened oil changes.

Certainly the oil oxidatively thickens increasing the MOFT. So wear should go down. The longer you run, the thicker the oil, the thicker the MOFT, ultimate wear control according to some. Wear should be zero.

What is wearing out and why?

Ali

Additives are depleted, fuel gets into the oil along with moisture, and wear metals that aren't filtered out still circulate through the system and can and do cause wear, in-spite of what some people think. With that kind of thought process why not just keep the oil level topped up, change the filter once in a while and never change the oil? Oil has a useful life, don't run it beyond that useful life.

 

[Bill7]

Less tooth decay with fewer brushings? Just thinking out loud here.

Less tooth decay with fewer brushings and thinner toothpaste.

 

[GR_CoB]

Aehaus is highly intelligent and has a lot of respect on the forum.
He definately is a pioneer in pushing the limits of thin oils.

I think any time he creates a thread, there ends up being 10's of pages of responses.
He seems to place very little importance on HTHS and MOFT, and he tends to focus more on faster flow of ultra thin oils and how that relates to adequate oil pressure.

He presents an argument which goes against what many people believe in. It is interesting that he shares his experiments on his own cars with the forum (like running 0W-20 in a supercar speced for 15W-50, or running 0W-5 in a Lincoln Navigator speced for 5W-30).

Not doubting his intelligence, but it definitely seems like he uses it to play with the forum. Just states his POV, and ignores anything that goes against it, whether his POV is correct or wrong. All his experiments are fun, but he usually gets rid of cars before the consequences of his experiments roll in. Next owners will be the ones paying for these experiments.

 

[4WD]

Not doubting his intelligence, but it definitely seems like he uses it to play with the forum. Just states his POV, and ignores anything that goes against it, whether his POV is correct or wrong. All his experiments are fun, but he usually gets rid of cars before the consequences of his experiments roll in. Next owners will be the ones paying for these experiments.

View attachment 139399

C’mon man - is that a dumpster ?

 

[Bill7]

Not doubting his intelligence, but it definitely seems like he uses it to play with the forum. Just states his POV, and ignores anything that goes against it, whether his POV is correct or wrong. All his experiments are fun, but he usually gets rid of cars before the consequences of his experiments roll in. Next owners will be the ones paying for these experiments.

View attachment 139399

Yes, I wouldn't want to be the eventual buyer on the used car market of that Lincoln Navigator ran with 0W-5
with visible metal debris in the oil filter after 1k miles. I think that 1k miles with 0W-5 gave the engine a lifetime of wear equivalent to the wear you would get after 200k miles with the recommended oil viscosity.

I also notice a pattern with some OP's, that they run for the hills after posting a controversial thread. My take on that is that they have already formed a strong opinion on a subject, and they are very comfortable with that opinion, and they don't want to face seeing their opinion proved wrong.

 

[Cujet]

That's not the only way. This is a much better way, but obviously not something anyone here could conduct.

https://www.swri.org/press-release/swri-adds-unique-efficient-engine-wear-testing-rig

Those rigs are very cool. There are a variety of testing rigs around and many do a great job simulating conditions. Of course, real world testing has a value all it's own. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to use words like "only" or "all" in a statistical sense. Ignoring the outliers as if they did not exist. That's a personal fault.

 

[wpod]

With much thought what happens is the purchaser of that car will join BITOG and ask what oil cleans out a sludge filled engine, frees stuck piston rings and will a thicker oil help with oil consumptionm.

 

[wpod]

Yes, I wouldn't want to be the eventual buyer on the used car market of that Lincoln Navigator ran with 0W-5
with visible metal debris in the oil filter after 1k miles. I think that 1k miles with 0W-5 gave the engine a lifetime of wear equivalent to the wear you would get after 200k miles with the recommended oil viscosity.

I also notice a pattern with some OP's, that they run for the hills after posting a controversial thread. My take on that is that they have already formed a strong opinion on a subject, and they are very comfortable with that opinion, and they don't want to face seeing their opinion proved wrong.

AE has been trolling the internet for years even the people on Ferrari chat believe his oil 101 articles like they are actually fact. One of my Ferrari owning friends would regurgitate the articles writings to me. We have people that are pros in many fields and trades on board here , learn to discern. Listen to their advice and answers.

 

[Bill7]

AE has been trolling the internet for years even the people on Ferrari chat believe his oil 101 articles like they are actually fact. One of my Ferrari owning friends would regurgitate the articles writings to me. We have people that are pros in many fields and trades on board here , learn to discern. Listen to their advice and answers.

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.

 

[kschachn]

Those rigs are very cool. There are a variety of testing rigs around and many do a great job simulating conditions. Of course, real world testing has a value all it's own. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to use words like "only" or "all" in a statistical sense. Ignoring the outliers as if they did not exist. That's a personal fault.

Very little usually because it is generally quite expensive and time consuming to generate statistically significant results in such an environment. Yes it can have value but nowhere near the level that popular sentiment tends to believe. Most all "real world testing" is little more than a collection of disconnected experiences that are woven into a conclusion with no real supporting data.

 

[Bill7]

Very little usually because it is generally quite expensive and time consuming to generate statistically significant results in such an environment. Yes it can have value but nowhere near the level that popular sentiment tends to believe. Most all "real world testing" is little more than a collection of disconnected experiences that are woven into a conclusion with no real supporting data.

If statistically significant results are not available, it might be a good idea to just use common sense.
To me, common sense is: Short oil change intervals. Clean oil = less engine wear, no oil consumption, and no sludge.

Also in any car that I own, I always change the PCV value every 30k miles, and I do a drain/fill of the ATF fluid every 15k miles.
Overkill (yes), but it gives me confidence that my engine and transmission can make it to 300k miles.

 

[CarbonSteel]

(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.

If the filter is designed to capture "X" size particles for "X" miles, then how is there going to be "large numbers of particles being let through"?

I can see using a bottom tier filter for a very long OC, but that is more related to using the wrong filter for the application versus being the fault of the filter or the length of time/miles used.

 

[Bill7]

If the filter is designed to capture "X" size particles for "X" miles, then how is there going to be "large numbers of particles being let through"?

I can see using a bottom tier filter for a very long OC, but that is more related to using the wrong filter for the application versus being the fault of the filter or the length of time/miles used.

It's really a question as to why OCI at 10k produces more engine wear/oil consumption than OCI at 5k.
I place some importance on advice from a famous YouTube channel: "The Car Care Nut" which is hosted by a Toyota ASE Certified Master Diagnostic Mechanic who worked for a Toyota Dealer in Chicago for 10+ years. He rebuilt hundreds of Toyota engines at the dealership that suffered from severe oil consumption. His only blame for Toyota's widespread oil consumption issues across all years/makes/models is the 10k OCI.

So there is something that happens to the oil between 5k and 10k where it shears/get dirtier/additive package gets weaker, etc
that is causing cumulative wear that eventually surfaces with severe oil consumption symptoms after 100k miles. It's unclear why this degredation happens after 5k to the oil.

But why risk it. Oil is so cheap. 5 quart jug at Walmart of the best oils for $25. I don't see the benefit to going to 10k miles.
I honestly place no importance at all on those Blackstone oil lab reports.
I trust a master ASE mechanic much more whose actually opened up the high oil consumption engines and replaced the block and piston rings, etc.

 

[OVERKILL]

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.

The oil articles (101...etc) on the main page of this forum are no longer the ones he authored. We had several tribologists go through and re-vamp them extensively to make them more factual/accurate a few years back.

 

[Bill7]

The oil articles (101...etc) on the main page of this forum are no longer the ones he authored. We had several tribologists go through and re-vamp them extensively to make them more factual/accurate a few years back.

Good to know. In your opinion, what is the final verdict on those articles. After the Tribologist's revisions, do the articles convincingly show that "thin" oils provide better engine protection than "thick" oils, or is that still undetermined.

 

[CarbonSteel]

It's really a question as to why OCI at 10k produces more engine wear/oil consumption than OCI at 5k.
I place some importance on advice from a famous YouTube channel: "The Car Care Nut" which is hosted by a Toyota ASE Certified Master Diagnostic Mechanic who worked for a Toyota Dealer in Chicago for 10+ years. He rebuilt hundreds of Toyota engines at the dealership that suffered from oil consumption. His only blame for Toyota's widespread oil consumption issues across all years/makes/models is the 10k OCI.

So there is something that happens to the oil between 5k and 10k where it shears/get dirtier/additive package gets weaker, etc
that is causing cumulative wear that eventually surfaces with severe oil consumption symptoms after 100k miles. It's unclear why this degredation happens after 5k to the oil.

But why risk it. Oil is so cheap. 5 quart jug at Walmart of the best oils for $25. I don't see the benefit to going to 10k miles.
I honestly place no importance at all on those Blackstone oil lab reports.
I trust a master ASE mechanic much more whose actually opened up the high oil consumption engines and replaced the block and piston rings, etc.

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.