Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'd put it this way. Roadrunner1 certainly isn't wrong. But, the argument can be made that the synthetic would hold up for longer. Doug Hillary didn't switch to synthetics because he likes the cost of synthetic oils down under. Now, if it were the original 3,000 mile OCI on the original Powerstroke, I'd keel over after filling that with synthetic.
Garak - you are correct. It was a commercial decision based on testing Mineral, Semi-synthetic and a full synthetic. Testing was to determine the condition of the lubricant and it was conducted over many OCIs and hundreds of 000s of OTR kms
Condemnation limits were reached as follows;
Mineral lubricant = 20kkms
Semi-synth = 35kkms
Synth = 90kkms
UOAs were used over many many millions of kms to confirm OCIs based on establish lubricant condemnation limits established via the OEM and the lubricant supplier
I presented the pictures of my engine teardown results (on engine at 1.2m kms) at the BITOG Conference held in Chicago several years ago
Of course I've been involved with the UOAs for several decades and in lubricant field testing for several Oil Companies since around 1959
This is the point I have been trying to make from the beginning, show the evidence that there is a problem and go from there. This thread has been nothing but conjecture from the beginning, I am not suggesting to run a sub-par lubricant and put your equipment in danger, but analyze whats being used, UOA and let the data determine what the next step should be. Current specced lubricants are designed to handle the conditions the OP experienced, to the IOLM limit, and I have provided data to show that the IOLM has plenty of a cushion that I could extend my interval.
Hi,
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'd put it this way. Roadrunner1 certainly isn't wrong. But, the argument can be made that the synthetic would hold up for longer. Doug Hillary didn't switch to synthetics because he likes the cost of synthetic oils down under. Now, if it were the original 3,000 mile OCI on the original Powerstroke, I'd keel over after filling that with synthetic.
Garak - you are correct. It was a commercial decision based on testing Mineral, Semi-synthetic and a full synthetic. Testing was to determine the condition of the lubricant and it was conducted over many OCIs and hundreds of 000s of OTR kms
Condemnation limits were reached as follows;
Mineral lubricant = 20kkms
Semi-synth = 35kkms
Synth = 90kkms
UOAs were used over many many millions of kms to confirm OCIs based on establish lubricant condemnation limits established via the OEM and the lubricant supplier
I presented the pictures of my engine teardown results (on engine at 1.2m kms) at the BITOG Conference held in Chicago several years ago
Of course I've been involved with the UOAs for several decades and in lubricant field testing for several Oil Companies since around 1959
This is the point I have been trying to make from the beginning, show the evidence that there is a problem and go from there. This thread has been nothing but conjecture from the beginning, I am not suggesting to run a sub-par lubricant and put your equipment in danger, but analyze whats being used, UOA and let the data determine what the next step should be. Current specced lubricants are designed to handle the conditions the OP experienced, to the IOLM limit, and I have provided data to show that the IOLM has plenty of a cushion that I could extend my interval.