2000 7.3, Amsoil , Hier copper

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


What I do think is a possibility is that continued high Cu readings due to "leaching" (more often accepted as flaking or chelation) could mask other "disasterous" events.


Thanks. Just to be clear Amsoil will not cause "flaking" of any engine parts. Copper Chelation can with with most all motor oils that contain esters. Look at some Redline Deisel UOA's. Chelation is at the molecular level - the copper is held in solution and detected in a UOA.



Allow me to be more clear, please, so I don't mislead others. The term "flaking" is not well defined, so I'll be more specific.

There are lots of Asmoil UOAs (especially in some specific engine types) that exhibit Cu readings significantly higher than "normal". By "significant" I mean I can show examples where the Cu is on a factor of 10x higher, and occasionally 100x higher. (Yes, I have seen a full UOA that had Cu approaching 1000ppm where the OCI was not extended). Seeing 200ppm, 300ppm, 500ppm is not uncommon upon the initial application of Amsoil in some applications. Not all, but certainly a reasonable amount to where many people post UOAs with fear and bewilderment, on this site and others. ("Fear" and "bewilderment" are fair terms for the concern and complaints I've fielded from others.)

I will use the term "gross" to mean an extremely exaggerated magnitude here. Having grossly high Cu readings can mask other undesirable events that would otherwise show up in a UOA, but become overwhelmed, masked, and basically disappear as "noise" when the Amsoil causes Cu spikes at such levels. That is undesirable in my book. Further, Blackstone has stated that such extreme levels of Cu (regardless of source) can be detrimental; I tend to agree, but Amsoil does not.

Yes, this phenomenon calms over time. But that "time" is often a factor of significant mileage accumulation (tens of thousands of miles). The higher the initial spike, the greater the time needed to "normalize". That can be averted by the frequent OCI with Amsoil, but it becomes quite expensive to do some "flushing" OCIs with $9/qrt oil! So, you either put up with the "spikes" for 50,000 miles (two extended OCIs) or you pay through the nose. Neither is an attractive option to me.

However, my main discontent with some of the other posts here was about the unqualified or unquantified comments of "disasterous" Amsoil. It's not fair to use such a label without explaining what is meant. Not for one second do I believe that using Amsoil will result in a "disaster" that results in catastrophic equipment damage. Many of Amsoil's products are quite awesome when used correctly with the understanding of benefits and limitations, and can be very effective and worthwhile.

There are two topics at play here:
1) Amsoils effects on a UOA
2) Amsoils effects on equipment

I don't like how Amsoil can skew results and mask potential problems, but I do not believe that using Amsoil will directly result in "disaster". Using Amsoil may, however, hide the evidence of some other cause or effect of disaster. What I take exception to is the comments from some other members in this thread that would lead some to believe using Amsoil in itself will lead to "disaster"; I find no proof in that whatsoever, and those comments are clearly not well defined in quality or quantity.

That make it more clear?

 

[FiremarshalRob]

Originally Posted By: rufushusky
"Chips" or tuners properly used and monitored via gauges are not going to cause problems by themselves. If you ignore your gauges or drive your truck like you stole it problems will quickly follow. Now you say "opened up" intake...now what does that mean? Are you running a 6637 intake or K&N or?

Curious about this as well...

 

[Qwiky]

Who said it would lead to a disaster?

Why stick with in that engine when a HDEO that is significantly cheaper makes it look poor in comparison.

I mean if the roles were reversed there would be a whole lot of ridicule for big name HDEOs for performing like this.

Because it is a higher priced you beaut boutique synthetic we're suppose to make excuses for it.

Sorry, just doesn't wash IMO when there is all the hype about how much better they are than dino oil.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Qwiky
Who said it would lead to a disaster?

Why stick with in that engine when a HDEO that is significantly cheaper makes it look poor in comparison.

I mean if the roles were reversed there would be a whole lot of ridicule for big name HDEOs for performing like this.

Because it is a higher priced you beaut boutique synthetic we're suppose to make excuses for it.

Sorry, just doesn't wash IMO when there is all the hype about how much better they are than dino oil.


I agree, it is very easy to change brands and not have to look for reasons to defend or look for excuses for high copper in the oil. The simple solution is to make a change and move on. If the high copper readings continue after changing brands then start looking for the problem. This would be true for any oil choice, so no flames or brand bashing from me. It could be leaching, but if a different oil yields lower copper readings then stick with it. JMO

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Qwiky
Who said it would lead to a disaster?

Why stick with in that engine when a HDEO that is significantly cheaper makes it look poor in comparison.

I mean if the roles were reversed there would be a whole lot of ridicule for big name HDEOs for performing like this.

Because it is a higher priced you beaut boutique synthetic we're suppose to make excuses for it.

Sorry, just doesn't wash IMO when there is all the hype about how much better they are than dino oil.


Now that you've better defined what you mean by "disaster", I can somewhat agree with you. It's just that your initial comment about Amsoil being a "disaster" was too broad based. Now that I understand what you meant, I tend to agree.

No, I would not use Amsoil for a multitude of reasons, and one of which is this Cu phenomenon. I do NOT abhor Amsoil; I just don't extend my OCIs and therefore syns are not cost effective for me.

The Delvac did well; I'd stick with any quality dino oil in this case and OCI at normal intervals.

 

[rufushusky]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The Delvac did well; I'd stick with any quality dino oil in this case and OCI at normal intervals.


Given that OCI is about 1.5 times as long as the "normal" and over twice as long as the "severe" OCIs for a 7.3 it did very well.

 

[dnewton3]

The Fe was about the same on a per-mile basis, but the Cu and Al came down very nicely.

I would say the Amsoil was clearly the cause of the spiked readings. Process of elimination; remove the Amsoil, the spikes go away.

Interesting that the Al was high, too. Typically, one would consider the Al to ride along in sympathy with the Fe due to normal wear. Here, the Fe stayed the same on a per-mile basis, but the Al dropped when the Cu dropped. There have been some heated debates that high Cu readings may or may not cause other sympathetic responses. Blackstone Labs has mentioned this, and I tend to agree that there is potential for this to happen. Some other entities supporting Amsoil have disagreed. On the surface at least, it seems this secondary phenomenon may have merit. The Al came down as soon as the Cu came down, which both coincided with the removal of the Amsoil. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ................. I don't know that it's fair to say this is 100% conclusive, but it's certainly condeming at face value.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Interesting that the Al was high, too. Typically, one would consider the Al to ride along in sympathy with the Fe due to normal wear. Here, the Fe stayed the same on a per-mile basis, but the Al dropped when the Cu dropped. There have been some heated debates that high Cu readings may or may not cause other sympathetic responses. Blackstone Labs has mentioned this, and I tend to agree that there is potential for this to happen. Some other entities supporting Amsoil have disagreed. On the surface at least, it seems this secondary phenomenon may have merit. The Al came down as soon as the Cu came down, which both coincided with the removal of the Amsoil. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ................. I don't know that it's fair to say this is 100% conclusive, but it's certainly condeming at face value.



I would say on the Aluminum an unbiased person with some knowledge would read this:

OIL..........Amsoil..........Amsoil................Delvac
Miles........15.3K..........22.5K..................7.2K
Al............13..............13......................2
Cu............89.............184......................4

And observe that the Al did not change from 15.3 to 22.5k while copper nearly doubled. It would seem strange if the Al was continued wear or even a sympathetic response that Al would stay the same in exactly the entire OCI miles Delvac was run for.

 

[dnewton3]

And the removal of Amsoil resulted in an immediate significant reduction of both Cu and Al.

My point, as you are aware, is that Cu in high concentrations may cause other wear issues. Blackstone has commented on it as well. You have contended in the past that there is no proof. Well, perhaps this is just one example where it does happen.

There is no proof, nor claim by me, that the relationship between Cu and Al is completely linear. But there certainly is some amount of suspcious activity where the removal of the very high Cu coincided in immediate reduction of Al almost down to a "noise" level. There could very well be a "threshold" that Cu crosses where Al does become affected in some engines. The relationship of Al sympathetic to Cu may be on a parabolic curve, with either a negative or postive slope. I would be the first to admit that I don't know for sure, but there is no reason to believe the relationship has to be linear or parallel. I'm not a chemist, but I took enough of it in school to understand that 1+1 does not always = 2 when it comes to the world of chemicals. In fact, the Cu reading was not even linear in it's upward response. With 50% more mileage exposure, the Cu nearly doubled. That uprise in Cu was not linear due to exposure. Why should we expect the Al to be so in it's relationship to Cu?

What I can see is that CLEARLY the Al was affected either directly by the chemical reaction of using Amsoil, or indirectly to that ester/Cu reaction causing more particulate as an abrasive entity. Either way, remove the Amsoil, the Cu and Al drop to very "normal" levels after just one OCI. The Amsoil was causing the Cu and Al spikes.

I do find that odd because very typically, the Cu will spike with the onset of the use of Amsoil. In this series of UOAs, AME was in use for many, many miles and several OCIs. That is why initially I suspected that Amsoil was not the cause of the rising Cu counts. So, I am somewhat befuddled why the Cu started it's rise long after the introduction of Amsoil. I suggested the removal of Amsoil merely to rule it out as a contributor. But, in fact, it seems I was wrong and the Amsoil is indeed the root cause of the Cu directly, and the Al indirectly.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And the removal of Amsoil resulted in an immediate significant reduction of both Cu and Al.


Well actually there was no additional Al after 15K. Zero, zilch. Fact is, just about any FRESH oil would have had an immediate reduction. Even Amsoil and the Cu would have been about 15 ppm or so (maybe a bit less). Look at 10K with fresh Amsoil - you can't ignore the miles.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
My point, as you are aware, is that Cu in high concentrations may cause other wear issues. Blackstone has commented on it as well. You have contended in the past that there is no proof. Well, perhaps this is just one example where it does happen.


It may, or it may not. This UOA certainly disproves the idea the higher the copper the more Al and Fe. Your theory used to be that Amsoil raised Cu and Fe followed - when it's clear Fe follows miles. Clearly this isn’t the case. Blackstone often makes statements that are not exactly backed by solid data.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There is no proof, nor claim by me, that the relationship between Cu and Al is completely linear. But there certainly is some amount of suspcious activity where the removal of the very high Cu coincided in immediate reduction of Al almost down to a "noise" level. There could very well be a "threshold" that Cu crosses where Al does become affected in some engines. The relationship of Al sympathetic to Cu may be on a parabolic curve, with either a negative or postive slope. I would be the first to admit that I don't know for sure, but there is no reason to believe the relationship has to be linear or parallel. I'm not a chemist, but I took enough of it in school to understand that 1+1 does not always = 2 when it comes to the world of chemicals. In fact, the Cu reading was not even linear in it's upward response. With 50% more mileage exposure, the Cu nearly doubled. That uprise in Cu was not linear due to exposure. Why should we expect the Al to be so in it's relationship to Cu?


Not expecting it to be linear, and there maybe some interesting Al -Cu ester complexes formed - but you did write “Cu in high concentrations may cause other wear issues” – in this singular UOA we are not seeing it.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
What I can see is that CLEARLY the Al was affected either directly by the chemical reaction of using Amsoil, or indirectly to that ester/Cu reaction causing more particulate as an abrasive entity.


Yes we see a relatively high Al level, but how you can “clearly” assume these things is beyond me. How do you know where the Al came from? When did the Al pop up? And please explain “ester/Cu reaction causing more particulate as an abrasive entity” when again this very UOA actually could lead to a conclusion that this idea is unsound.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Either way, remove the Amsoil, the Cu and Al drop to very "normal" levels after just one OCI. The Amsoil was causing the Cu and Al spikes.


I’m not with you on this either. You readily admit that UOA metals are not linear. I agree that ester/PAO motor oils can cause copper in solution from certain surfaces in this engine in particular. It happens. Not sure how you conclude Amsoil alone caused the Al.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I do find that odd because very typically, the Cu will spike with the onset of the use of Amsoil. In this series of UOAs, AME was in use for many, many miles and several OCIs. That is why initially I suspected that Amsoil was not the cause of the rising Cu counts. So, I am somewhat befuddled why the Cu started it's rise long after the introduction of Amsoil. I suggested the removal of Amsoil merely to rule it out as a contributor. But, in fact, it seems I was wrong and the Amsoil is indeed the root cause of the Cu directly, and the Al indirectly.


I tend to think the cause was this:

Quote:
Last sample the sump was 4 qts low.

 

[dnewton3]

My theory previously stated in other threads was NOT that Cu would force Fe up; my theroy is that very high concentrations of Cu may result in other symtpthetic wear due to abrasive actions. That is what I stated; that is what Blackstone stated. There is at least some reasonable suspicion to see this may have merit in some cases, such as this.

I agree that the sump capacity would have some effect on the ppm, but not to the order of magnitude that is represented in the escalation of the Cu. Once particles are in the sump, the concentration should be fairly consistent. If one had 100ppm of element Xx in 10 qrts, the ratio would be 10:1. If you cut the sump volume in half and left the Xx alone, the ratio would double to 20:1. (I'm going by memory; my number may be a bit off - I recall that the 7.3L hold 15 quarts, so losing 4 qrts would be a 27% loss of volume, no?) In this real world UOA, the sump lost 27% capacity, but the Cu readings went from "normal" levels of perhaps 18ppm to 184ppm. That is a 10x escalation factor. The concentration-based-upon-sump-loss theory fails to pass muster here. It certainly contributed, but it would represent a very small portion of the total Al and Cu spikes.

It's possible that there is some onset of mechanical component failure. (The Fe is probably just "normal" wear). But the Cu could be a bearing going out, and the Al could be sympathic to the Cu, or it would be part of the component? But, since the Amsoil has been in use for quite some time now, what does that say of the use of Amsoil? I'm not stating this as fact, but rather asking it as a theorhetical question. If the engine was healthy before the use of Amsoil, and there was at least one decent UOA with Amsoil, then did the continued use of Amsoil cause, or fail to protect from, mechanical wear that may lead to ultimate mechanical failure? I would tend to say failing components are NOT the case of the ppm readings. In essence, the root question becomes this:
Did impending mechanical failure manifest itself in front of the use of Amsoil, or because of the use of Amsoil? It's a bit of the chicken and the egg question. But, if we accept that this is not the case, then that only leads us back to chemical reactions, does it not?

I am somewhat still perplexed with this.
The "inputs" of successvie UOA data would lead me to believe that Amsoil is not the root cause.
The "output" of immediate reduction of wear metals at the conclusion of the Delvac UOA makes me think the Amsoil is the cause.

I am in a position to agree that there may be outside influences going on here, but I can't believe that the cause is simply sump capacity based. The numbers simply don't support that conclusion at all.

We could ask the OP to re-install Amsoil on the next OCI, and see if the Cu and Al begin to spike yet again. If I were him, I don't think I'd agree to that.