What I have learned from BITOG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
1,130
Location
California
In the months I've been following many of the discussions and analysis results I've learned a great deal and have drawn a few conclusions:

1) Routine UOAs to find engine problems early are smart & effective tools. For example: a couple of $20 UOAs found the intake manifold gasket leak on our GM Minivan before it did much damage and while the vehicle was still covered by extended warranty. Thanks!

2) For most applications and when following conservative OCIs there is very little data to support the idea that expensive synthetic oils reduce wear as compared to the best "dino" or blend oils. GF-4 seems likely to make this even more true as most of the dino oils have had to improve their game. "Dino" oils in the case of many makers are being made with ever higher grade basestocks (Group II, II+, etc.).

3) Some engines are highly prone to sludge formation and need to be watched closely. Others have chronic intake manifold gasket problems, etc. Researching the known trouble spots for your vehicle and acting accordingly makes sense.

4) Some of the car makers are specifiying very long drain intervals without making sure that the motor oils and vehicles are really up to it. Marketing is trumping good engineering in these cases. See #3 above!

5) Top flight 5W-20 oils (i.e. Motorcraft 5W-20, Exxon Superflo 5W-20, and some others) produce better results in the applications for which they are specified then I ever would have imagined possible. If you are using a 5W-20 oil, make sure it meets the Ford WSS-M2C153-H specification. Some "major brand" 5W-20 oils do not list this specification on their label. The objections to using 5W-20 oils where called for seem to be 99% religion objections on the part of the objectors without supporting data.

6) Religious objections to Castrol and others marketing Group III oils as sythetic aside, the few actual UOAs of these oils seem to provide excellent results. Considering lesson #2 above, this is not a surprise.

7) The construction of Fram's oil filters makes me nervous and I don't buy them anymore. Wix or Baldwin for me
smile.gif
.

All of these lessons have caused me to change my behavior and have saved me money while reducing the worry factor. More money left in my pocket AND better sleep at night. What isn't to like ?

Thanks for the education!

John
 
John:

IMO, a good summary overall. You and I have crossed swords on the Group-III marketing issue before, and I think you're painting with a slightly broad brush on this one ("6) Religious objections to Castrol and others marketing Group III oils as sythetic aside. . ."). My objection to Castrol and it's marketing of G-III is not a "religious" one at all. The results speak for themselves, and are usually good. What torques me is the deceptive approch taken in selling the stuff. We don't need to re-ignite that debate (unless you want to...
wink.gif
), but again, it's my opinion that considering the standard usage of the word "synthetic", not the Ph.D. chemist understanding, Castrol abuses the term.

That said, I hold my nose and purchase GC in bulk. At least my eyes are open and I know who and what I'm dealing with.
 
quote:

Originally posted by jthorner:
In the months I've been following many of the discussions and analysis results I've learned a great deal and have drawn a few conclusions: Thanks for the education!
John


I think you pretty much have it.
 
Along the same lines I think you can combine #2,#3 and #4 in a turbo car and make a pretty GOOD argument that synthetic oils, although they have a higher initial price, represent a good value.

#8) Using the OEM equivalent oil filter/paper air filter is usually never a bad move.

#9) HDD 15W-40 works pretty good in some cars, and in synthetic form works really good in some cars.
 
synthetic oils include any motoroil made with an additive pack according to lubes and greases recent article on the contarversy.

this means some bargain basement group 1 oil with an api add pack could legally be considered a synthetic oil.

you should thank castrol for not doing this with its synthetic oils, and instead chosing to use a group 3 base for its syntec.
 
quote:

religious objections to using Pennzoil

An excellent point.

Allow me to add a new entry to the list:

8) Lots of the opinions held about various motor oils are the result of urban legends, irrelevant ancient history and other such nonsense. The "Pennzoil causes sludge" story which makes the rounds is one example of this. A corollary is that very little truth is found in what Experienced Mechanic XYZ, Part Counter Guy/Gal ZZZZ, My Dealer's Service Writer and other self-styled experts say with regard to motor oils. The vast majority of such stories have little or no basis in fact.

9) I'm not going to touch the Amsoil subject
smile.gif
.

quote:

May I mount this on my wall in my office?

By all means
smile.gif
.

John
 
For all the people who badmouth FRAM, no one has yet to show a UOA that shows any detrimental effects from the use of a FRAM filter.

I've stopped buyin 'em because of this site, but definitely will not discard any of my inventory of existing filters based on some unfounded paranoia of cardboard endcaps or nitrile ADBV's
 
quote:

Originally posted by pitzel:
For all the people who badmouth FRAM, no one has yet to show a UOA that shows any detrimental effects from the use of a FRAM filter.

I've stopped buyin 'em because of this site, but definitely will not discard any of my inventory of existing filters based on some unfounded paranoia of cardboard endcaps or nitrile ADBV's


Pitzel, no one gives a rats arse if you use Frams. Go ahead and use them.
 
quote:

disagree with #4.
any examples?

Sure, the Toyotas with sludge problems as well as reported VW and Chrysler engines with similar problems. The auto makers tried to blame the owners, but enough people who had these vehicles and had documented "by the book" oil changes made a stink that some are finally getting repaired for free.

One of many articles on this is at:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vw_sludge.html

You can also find reports here on BITOG of BMWs which have supposedly seen by the book maint. and which are filled with engine sludge.

Also Honda calling for 10,000 mile service intervals on it's US 4 cylinder cars for "normal" service, but 5,000 mile intervals for those same vehicles in Canada. Sorry, but Seattle , Washington and Vancouver, BC have very similar climates, yet different OCI recommendations. Something besides sound engineering is going on there. I have read the entire maint. section of my Honda owner's manual and their definition of severe service does not in any way correlate to the idea that a Toronto, Ontario driver in the summer should ipso facto be doing something different than a Rochester, New York driver.

Anyway, take a different view if you like, but this is one of the conclusions I have reached after spending many, many hours reading information here on BITOG and other places. If you disagree, go for it. I am not really here to argue the point, but simply summarized what I have learned in these many hours.

Generally the mfg. severe service intervals are safe, with the proviso that those companies who tell you to never change the brake fluid, transmission fluid or coolant are full of ****. My view, not yours perhaps.

quote:

For all the people who badmouth FRAM

Read what I said very carefully.

John
 
quote:

Originally posted by jthorner:

quote:

disagree with #4.
any examples?

Sure, the Toyotas with sludge problems as well as reported VW and Chrysler engines with similar problems. The auto makers tried to blame the owners, but enough people who had these vehicles and had documented "by the book" oil changes made a stink that some are finally getting repaired for free.

One of many articles on this is at:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vw_sludge.html

You can also find reports here on BITOG of BMWs which have supposedly seen by the book maint. and which are filled with engine sludge.

Also Honda calling for 10,000 mile service intervals on it's US 4 cylinder cars for "normal" service, but 5,000 mile intervals for those same vehicles in Canada. Sorry, but Seattle , Washington and Vancouver, BC have very similar climates, yet different OCI recommendations. Something besides sound engineering is going on there. I have read the entire maint. section of my Honda owner's manual and their definition of severe service does not in any way correlate to the idea that a Toronto, Ontario driver in the summer should ipso facto be doing something different than a Rochester, New York driver.

Anyway, take a different view if you like, but this is one of the conclusions I have reached after spending many, many hours reading information here on BITOG and other places. If you disagree, go for it. I am not really here to argue the point, but simply summarized what I have learned in these many hours.

Generally the mfg. severe service intervals are safe, with the proviso that those companies who tell you to never change the brake fluid, transmission fluid or coolant are full of ****. My view, not yours perhaps.

quote:

For all the people who badmouth FRAM

Read what I said very carefully.

John


I have not seen or heard of anyone getting sludge when they follow the mnf. recommended OCI, adhere to regular or severe service re driving conditions, AND use the type of oil they're supposed to be using.
Do you have any examples that fill the above criteria?
 
What might be lacking is also important. I’m still looking for proof, or at least scientific evidence, that the wear data gleaned from the basic UOAs done on random vehicles under uncontrolled conditions in the manner posted here is a reliable gauge of an oil’s performance with regard to engine longevity.

Is it here somewhere and I've missed it?
 
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

Originally posted by pitzel:
For all the people who badmouth FRAM, no one has yet to show a UOA that shows any detrimental effects from the use of a FRAM filter.

I've stopped buyin 'em because of this site, but definitely will not discard any of my inventory of existing filters based on some unfounded paranoia of cardboard endcaps or nitrile ADBV's


Pitzel, no one gives a rats arse if you use Frams. Go ahead and use them.


XS650,

Aren't you being a little rough?
confused.gif
 
quote:

I have not seen or heard of anyone getting sludge when they follow the mnf. recommended OCI, adhere to regular or severe service re driving conditions, AND use the type of oil they're supposed to be using.
Do you have any examples that fill the above criteria?

Do a Google search on Chrysler 2.7 liter or Dodge 2.7 liter. You'll see.
 
Brian, I get tired of posting this here and others but its what I can pull up quickly;

"SAE TECH paper #981078 Expediting Engine Development through near time oil analysis. Nelson and Finch."

Basic premise of the paper is that on site UOA is accurate to assist engine development and testing and alert the engineers to make changes BEFORE failure and allows confirmation on dyno/test stand issues without teardown.

They correlated a a load of Chrysler data to prove to manufactorers it was scientific and cost effective.

I have been doing the same thing for 20 years before they "proved" this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom