07.5 Chevy DMax 27,573 miles Mobil Delvac 15W-40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
990
Location
Louisiana
* 27,573 miles on sample
* 59,973 on truck
* Mobil Delvac 1300 15W-40
* Amsoil full flow & Oil Guard Bypass
* Approximately 8 qts or so makeup oil in interval, including full flow and bypass filter change.
* Sump capacity with bypass filter is 11 1/2 quarts

Not sure why the spike in copper. I did recently have an air intake valve changed, but don't think that would cause a spike in Cu.

Photograph.jpg
 
Aside from the copper, results are amazing for 27k miles.

By-pass filters really do work wonders.
 
Copper from oil cooler...?
Wow why have bypass when u are replacing that qty of oil?
As my well spoken peer from Indiana has pointed out in the past the roi of having a bypass system is hard to justify.
 
Last edited:
8 quarts of makeup in 28K miles, with 2 1/2 of the 8 coming from the full flow and bypass change out a few thousand miles ago.

You think a stock full flow filter will do a 28K interval with dino with just a one time filter swap? You think my TBN will still be at 6 with just a full flow filter?

If you say yes, then I disagree and will say you are dead wrong.
 
Ark' - I know you take great care of your truck.

All else is great; I suspect the Cu is an error? We all know that Cu will be high when new, but this is higher than even new Dmax readings from the cooler leaching. I would have to ask the lab if that Cu was a mistake; it is just too far out of line with everything else.

As for the oil consumption, that is a result of how hard the engine works in regard to fuel consumption. The "official" GM postion is that the engine is running acceptably if you consume 1 quart of oil for every 100 gallons of fuel used. When I'm pulling my travel trailer in summer heat, I fall just under this. At other times, I see zero consumption when not loaded or in winter. My point is two-fold.
1) some consumption is "normal", and
2) consumption is dependent upon severity of use.

Arka' ran about 28k miles, and presumably perhaps averaged 15mpg for the whole distance (loaded and empty, city and highway). That means he consumed almost 1850 gallons of fuel. So, by GM standards, anything less than 18 quarts of oil would be "normal". His ride consumed 5.5 quarts (when you take out the 2.5 for the filter changes). Five and one-half quarts in 28k miles is GOOD, espcially considering that I know he tows a large rig in summer!

My synopsis: fantastic dino oil, great filtration, very reasonable oil consumption, and a probable Cu mistake.
 
Last edited:
And there you have it.....Dave, I posted this so you could look at it and provide extra insight. I can't complain with the results, given the mileage that the oil was run.

The Cu reading is odd, to say the least. If there were issues, other soft wear metals would also be elevated in which they are not. I'm with you...think the Cu is in error.

I'll more than likely dump the oil soon, and will replace with some Castrol Tection 15W-40 just to try something else for comparison.
 
If you have (or are willing to get) a Fumoto valve, you can sample very easily and not have to dump.

I don't know that I'd dump this load; everything else is so well in control. I'd get another sample from this load, then select some other lab, and see what the Cu reading is. Then make a decision from there.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
If you have (or are willing to get) a Fumoto valve, you can sample very easily and not have to dump.

I don't know that I'd dump this load; everything else is so well in control. I'd get another sample from this load, then select some other lab, and see what the Cu reading is. Then make a decision from there.

Already got a Fumoto. Have/had one on every vehicle I've owned for the past 7 yrs. Love those things.

I've contemplated sending in a sample to Blackstone to see if Cu is still reading high. Not that I'm worried about it. More curious than anything.
 
That UOA is great. Shows what dino can do. Copper is a little unsettling, but sometimes a lab error or whatnot can occur.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: D-Roc
That UOA is great. Shows what dino can do. Copper is a little unsettling, but sometimes a lab error or whatnot can occur.

I bet Ruby would ask if I've run the same OCI with Delo, Delvac, Rotella, and Motorcraft. Then, he would ask if I've had particle counts done so he can determine the best oil to run in his truck for 5K miles before he dumps it out
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Arkapigdiesel
Originally Posted By: D-Roc
That UOA is great. Shows what dino can do. Copper is a little unsettling, but sometimes a lab error or whatnot can occur.

I bet Ruby would ask if I've run the same OCI with Delo, Delvac, Rotella, and Motorcraft. Then, he would ask if I've had particle counts done so he can determine the best oil to run in his truck for 5K miles before he dumps it out
lol.gif



Ruby seems to have taken a leave of absence
27.gif
...but I suspect he's assumed another name...
31.gif
07.gif
 
I am not trying to be a dink here, and I have asked this time and time again, how can we praise an oil when more than half has been replaced during the life of the test???

Ark,dnewton and D-Roc I have great respect for your knowledge and insight and realize that diesels that are worked will be different from gas engines but I can't grasp the concept of greatness shown in this analysis. Please help
 
I understand, at least in part, your concern.

You see a "skew" of the data from all the fresh oil. It's true. But ...

The only real benefit to bypass filtration is extended OCIs. At some point, there is always the inevitible evaporation of lubricant; nothing stays inert forever in this regard. Some top-off is going to be experienced, and some replenishment is going to happen at filter change time.

I guess he could have taken a UOA before he ever changed a filter or added a top-off, but eventually, he has to do something to maintain the system. If he didn't do this, then where would be the advantage to longer OCIs with bypass?

What a UOA really does, when utilized in conjunction with a bypass system, it show how the bypass helps keep the oil fresher, longer.

To each his own. I know a guy I used to work with that only changed his Aerostar van filter every 3k-5k miles, and NEVER changed his oil. His logic was that between the top-off from "consumption" and the replenishment of the filter capacity, that was enough fresh oil to keep the system viable. I cannot say I would subscribe to this, but OTOH, last time I checked, he had over 100k miles on his ride, which got nothing but his "unique" treatment since he bought it new, and it still ran fine when I rode in it.

Kind of puts the AR BITOG viewpoint in perspective, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
I see this in a better light now. As more factors come into play when using a by-pass system and doing a true extended oci. That being said, all or most of the dirt istrapped in the filter right, so technically the oil in the filter could be rudimentaly strained and reintroduced into the system again,keeping added oil down ??
 
Well, shorter FCIs in a bypass system obviously will introduce more fresh oil, due to volume replenishment. That is different from true "consumption" via evaporization and/or burning in the combustion process. That is why I brought up the topics seperately. Together, they become "make up oil". Sometimes you can make judgements of the oil based upon the total make up oil versus the consumption of oil. Oil that resists evaporation and oxidation will have little affect on the "make up oil". Also, oil consumption is greatly affected by engine loading, especially in a diesel. How much you add to overcome oil "burnt" is different from how much you add to replace filter volume. That's fairly obvious.

What I see as a valid concern in your question is how do we attribute great performance to the oil when so much of it might be "new". I guess what I'm telling you is that some amount of oil has to be new by necessity of operating a bypass system; it simply cannot be avoided.

The longer your filter change interval, the lesser your need to replace the filter capacity. Duh - right? So, with bypass use, you are always playing some fundemental game of seeing just how long you can run your bypass filter element. Sometimes, the only way to know when it needs to be changed is by touching the element canister, and seeing if it's hot to the touch. Cool temps indicate that the flow is so poor that the filter is basically plugged. This is not a danger at the bypass element because it has no bypass valve like the full flow filter necessitates for safe operation. However, this clearly is a low-tech gage to know when to change a filter.

This topic is, at it's core, just one of the many attributes one has to consider when reviewing the choice of using bypass filtration. Consider the bypass filtration with TP; oil make up via filter element change is a HUGE part of overall cost. The toilet paper is cheap; it's the oil replacement that kills the cost ROI. And that constant replenishment gives you a nearly "new" fresh oil system very frequently, because the sump's total capacity is greatly affected by the bypass system by percentage.

Bypass filters on smaller sump systems stuggle to make fiscal sense, and they also create a great affect on the oil "freshness". Very large sump systems don't become effected as greatly, because their percent volume is skewed to a much smaller degree. In larger systems, the pay off is by volume reduction at purchase time. A 10 gallon sump is much cheaper to top off than replace. A 2 gallon sump is pretty darn cheap to replace. Since the "top off" rate is fairly constant (cost of filters and amount of oil used) you can find whether it's cheaper to use bypass, or just dump/fill a "normal" system.

So, back to your initial comment/question, it's true that bypass systems do somewhat skew the view of oil performance. They have to, to be able to perform their foremost job, which is to greatly extend the OCI. I suppose you could put on a bypass system, and run it for as long as possible before you had to add oil or change filters, and then do a UOA. At that one point in time, you'd really know how well the oil was able to last. But after you top off, you have manipulated the original load, so the "virgin" oil load is now no longer "pure". Then you add oil and change filters. Now, you've no longer got a virgin load of oil. But keep in mind that the MAIN driver of bypass is to save money. You save that money by purchasing less oil. As long as your oil in the sump is viable (regardless of age) then it's serviceable, and cost effective.

Running a bypass system isn't so much about praising a particular brand of oil, as much as it's about complimenting a well-managed system. The engine, the oil, and the filters all acting together are manipulated to achieve the greatest ROI. Utilizing a bypass filter often makes any oil look good by UOA results. But it's really about the OCI duration; that is the goal. As long as your oil is in good shape, it is worthy of "praise", but it's really the filter that got it there. The goal of bypass filtration isn't healthy oil for the sake of the oil bragging rights. The goal is healthy oil for the sake of your engine, while making your wallet happy!

Further, a little considered fact is that one of the "best" uses of bypass filtration is actaully with dino oil, rather than synthetic oil. Here's why ...
Presuming the bypass fitler is capable of keeping ANY oil clean, then why have the expense of synthetic at 3x the cost? You can get a good quality dino HDEO for $2.50/qrt, versus $7.50/qrt for synthetic HDEO. So, presuming your total make-up oil is a low percentage of consumed oil, versus filter capacity replenishment, then why would you run an oil that costs 3x as much money, when it's the VOLUME you're replacing? If you have to top off fluids MOSTLY because of filter capacity (and not consumption), then where's the logic in spending 3x the money per quart? It's likley that the oil load will be viable for the same duration. The bypass filter keeps ANY brand or grade of oil at a very clean level. So where is the "advantage" of synthetic oil when the dino oil is just as clean?????? Once you top off with an HDEO (regardless of base stock) your add-pack is bolstered! So where is the sense in spending the extra money for synthetic?

Here is a quote from me in an earlier post in this thread:
"My synopsis: fantastic dino oil, great filtration, very reasonable oil consumption, and a probable Cu mistake."
That is not just about the oil; it's a comment on the system management as a whole. Arkapigsiesel is very diligent about his ride, and puts a lot of thought/effort into maintaining his truck. He is very versed in bypass filtration, as he's on his second brand of system. He's done PC analysis in the past, as well as UOA analysis. So, my statement of "fantastic dino oil" was inferring that the oil (Delvac 1300) is known to be a great oil right out of the jug; it was not a comment on the UOA results as the oil being a single contributing entity. Rather, the WHOLE SYSTEM is responsible for the great UOA results. (Aside from the Cu, which is likely a error). Does that help make better sense of it? Perhaps I gave a poor impression initially. I was complimenting a well maintained system, not only the oil.

The key is to find the balance point where you have the least affect (manipulation of input), while realizing the greatest effect (resultant ouput)!
 
Last edited:
dnewton3


Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this, I finally understand! As I said I respect Ark,you and D-Roc and have switched from wasting synthetic to optomizing dino,no by-pass system for me but I understand oil and it's uses better through what you and others have posted here. Again thank you.
 
Originally Posted By: Bambam
dnewton3


Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this, I finally understand! As I said I respect Ark,you and D-Roc and have switched from wasting synthetic to optomizing dino,no by-pass system for me but I understand oil and it's uses better through what you and others have posted here. Again thank you.


x2
 
You are welcome.

I do not want to ever give the impression that synthetics and bypass are a poor choice; nothing could be further from the truth. They are tools to save money by allowing extended OCIs. If you cannot (or will not) extend your OCIs, then they are flat out a waste of time, effort and money. But if you can (and are willing to) extend your OCIs, they are fantastic savings tools. What most people struggle with is how to manipulate the system as a whole, to get the best ROI. Efficiency is defined as the ratio of output/input. You have to toy with the nuiances of the lubricant system to find the optimal return.

Arka' does a great job of that. Part of the reason he's running dino with bypass is because the synthetic approach wasn't paying out as well, for him. As I recall, he switched from Amsoil lubes + Asmoil bypass filters to using dino oils with the Oil Guard filters (for better PC results). If you look over this UOA, I think he's doing a stellar job!

BTW - I wasn't born this smart (contrary to my own self-inflated opinion
lol.gif
).
I had to learn from others, and my own mistakes, as well!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top