How long has this oil been in the sump total?
Redline Diesel Oil 15W40 - 2006 Duramax LBZ
- Thread starter CdnMax
- Start date
- Status
Dear dnewton3,
As you can see by my info box, I've been a member of this forum for two years now, as I can see from your info, you’ve been a member here for over four years.
As you can also see I’ve posted a total of 9 times. You’ve posted almost 2500 times.
Obviously we use this forum for different purposes. I use it to gain knowledge and information as well as observe other oil geeks insights and experiences which I take into consideration when purchasing/using various products discussed in this forum. On rare occasions I’ve posted to get answers to questions or post analyses in order to provide data to be added to the database of UOA’s. I realize I did request comments on this post; however I was looking for insight into the data I had as it related to others’ experience with this product. Technical data for sure, someone’s rant on dino vs oil no, but it is a free country
I certainly didn’t post in order to tout the benefits of one product over another.
I know I’m making an assumption about you here, but since you made numerous assumptions in your post, please extend me the same courtesy.
By the number of your posts your purpose is different than mine. I read a great deal of your posts and it’s obvious that you have a great deal of good information, experience and insight to provide other members.
Your previous posts on this very topic of synthetic vs dino oil made prior to your response to my post have made your position very clear with very valid arguments. I know, I’ve read your posts.
What I’m somewhat dismayed at is you chose to make these arguments again for the 50th time (the horse is dead…quit beating) while using my analysis and by extension, me as your poster child to put down my choice as well as making some assumptions on why I chose this oil, what I paid for it and what my future plans and expectations are. All this for the purpose for making a point you’ve made numerous times before.
Firstly you have no information on what was paid for this oil in my case. Was I given a case of it as a thank you for services I provided to someone? Did I pay $0.05/liter? Did I pay $50.00/liter? Or is it “D”, none of the above? If I was reading my post from someone else’s position, I wouldn’t care and I certainly wouldn’t make any presumptions. Unless of course I had an axe to grind and an entrenched position to support. Both somewhat valid reasons but where we differ is in the approach.
Perhaps the best place for this rant would be in your own post of your dino 10w30 analysis? You’d be free, even entitled, to praise your choice of oils and its performance while making a comparison to synthetic oils.
I must admit I’m also a little confused. You’ve replied directly to me in this post and yet you refer to me in the third person numerous times.
“If he does not GREATLY extend his OCI, he's wasting money big time”
“Is he willing to do that?”
“Could he go 50-60k km? Could he even keep his hands off the wrenches that long?”
Are you speaking to me or perhaps a wider audience, maybe even a perceived fan club?
I’m also confused by a couple of your statements:
“But it surely didn't result in 3x or 4x less wear now, did it?”
Did I say that it did? Did I say that it should? Did I say that I expected it to?
“I will now return you to you regularly scheduled synthetic rhetoric.”
Whose rhetoric? Mine? Where? When?
Sir, you don’t know me, why I used this oil, what I paid or what my expectations and future plans are. Yet you feel entitled to make assumptions.
On that same vein:
“Allow me to be the voice of discontent (as expected).”
“I will now return you to you regularly scheduled synthetic rhetoric”
To me, these comments seem to be the comments of someone who’s a “legend in their own mind” would like to beat their own chest and appreciates the adulation of others. They provide no beneficial purpose to any rational, intelligent discussion on oil.
You are not alone in exhibiting the qualities as it seems to be the problem with more and more forums everyday and it turns people like me off from contributing and participating.
Was I entitled to make those comments? It’s a free country and I was as entitled as you were to make yours. In the interest of respect and good taste should I have used my “inside” voice to make them…absolutely? Just as you should have also.
Will I ever post an analysis on this forum again? Not likely. Will I ever enter a post on this forum or any other that’s purpose is to advance my opinion or beliefs at the expense of someone else’s decision or choice? Never, I’m certainly not that insecure.
I will now return you to you regularly scheduled soap box.
As you can see by my info box, I've been a member of this forum for two years now, as I can see from your info, you’ve been a member here for over four years.
As you can also see I’ve posted a total of 9 times. You’ve posted almost 2500 times.
Obviously we use this forum for different purposes. I use it to gain knowledge and information as well as observe other oil geeks insights and experiences which I take into consideration when purchasing/using various products discussed in this forum. On rare occasions I’ve posted to get answers to questions or post analyses in order to provide data to be added to the database of UOA’s. I realize I did request comments on this post; however I was looking for insight into the data I had as it related to others’ experience with this product. Technical data for sure, someone’s rant on dino vs oil no, but it is a free country
I certainly didn’t post in order to tout the benefits of one product over another.
I know I’m making an assumption about you here, but since you made numerous assumptions in your post, please extend me the same courtesy.
By the number of your posts your purpose is different than mine. I read a great deal of your posts and it’s obvious that you have a great deal of good information, experience and insight to provide other members.
Your previous posts on this very topic of synthetic vs dino oil made prior to your response to my post have made your position very clear with very valid arguments. I know, I’ve read your posts.
What I’m somewhat dismayed at is you chose to make these arguments again for the 50th time (the horse is dead…quit beating) while using my analysis and by extension, me as your poster child to put down my choice as well as making some assumptions on why I chose this oil, what I paid for it and what my future plans and expectations are. All this for the purpose for making a point you’ve made numerous times before.
Firstly you have no information on what was paid for this oil in my case. Was I given a case of it as a thank you for services I provided to someone? Did I pay $0.05/liter? Did I pay $50.00/liter? Or is it “D”, none of the above? If I was reading my post from someone else’s position, I wouldn’t care and I certainly wouldn’t make any presumptions. Unless of course I had an axe to grind and an entrenched position to support. Both somewhat valid reasons but where we differ is in the approach.
Perhaps the best place for this rant would be in your own post of your dino 10w30 analysis? You’d be free, even entitled, to praise your choice of oils and its performance while making a comparison to synthetic oils.
I must admit I’m also a little confused. You’ve replied directly to me in this post and yet you refer to me in the third person numerous times.
“If he does not GREATLY extend his OCI, he's wasting money big time”
“Is he willing to do that?”
“Could he go 50-60k km? Could he even keep his hands off the wrenches that long?”
Are you speaking to me or perhaps a wider audience, maybe even a perceived fan club?
I’m also confused by a couple of your statements:
“But it surely didn't result in 3x or 4x less wear now, did it?”
Did I say that it did? Did I say that it should? Did I say that I expected it to?
“I will now return you to you regularly scheduled synthetic rhetoric.”
Whose rhetoric? Mine? Where? When?
Sir, you don’t know me, why I used this oil, what I paid or what my expectations and future plans are. Yet you feel entitled to make assumptions.
On that same vein:
“Allow me to be the voice of discontent (as expected).”
“I will now return you to you regularly scheduled synthetic rhetoric”
To me, these comments seem to be the comments of someone who’s a “legend in their own mind” would like to beat their own chest and appreciates the adulation of others. They provide no beneficial purpose to any rational, intelligent discussion on oil.
You are not alone in exhibiting the qualities as it seems to be the problem with more and more forums everyday and it turns people like me off from contributing and participating.
Was I entitled to make those comments? It’s a free country and I was as entitled as you were to make yours. In the interest of respect and good taste should I have used my “inside” voice to make them…absolutely? Just as you should have also.
Will I ever post an analysis on this forum again? Not likely. Will I ever enter a post on this forum or any other that’s purpose is to advance my opinion or beliefs at the expense of someone else’s decision or choice? Never, I’m certainly not that insecure.
I will now return you to you regularly scheduled soap box.
Panthermike: Since May 2010.
I figured, thanks for clarifying. That's quite a bit of time in the sump. May I ask how long you plan to keep it in there?
dnewton, remember that it's often said that basic UOA's aren't a true indicator of everything that's happening inside of an engine.
dnewton, remember that it's often said that basic UOA's aren't a true indicator of everything that's happening inside of an engine.
Originally Posted By: panthermike
I figured, thanks for clarifying. That's quite a bit of time in the sump. May I ask how long you plan to keep it in there?
...........
Exactly - To me this is a very extended OCI and would in fact be a better "return on investment" in oil than some. For example my Mobil 1 TDT amd Mobil 1 oil filter run at factory intervals up to 10,0000 miles and/or up to 1 year per the DIC is not truly needed, but I want to run Mobil 1 and that's all that matters, for me and my rig. Stretching out OCI's to 10,000 miles or 1 year was a bit of a jump from the 3 month, 3,000 mile myth for me. And this being the most expensive rig and first diesel I have ever owned, a little extra spent on oil is no biggie. Heck I have bought Mobil 1 for even my lawn mower since the '80's......... And it's always on discounted sale around these parts....
I figured, thanks for clarifying. That's quite a bit of time in the sump. May I ask how long you plan to keep it in there?
...........
Exactly - To me this is a very extended OCI and would in fact be a better "return on investment" in oil than some. For example my Mobil 1 TDT amd Mobil 1 oil filter run at factory intervals up to 10,0000 miles and/or up to 1 year per the DIC is not truly needed, but I want to run Mobil 1 and that's all that matters, for me and my rig. Stretching out OCI's to 10,000 miles or 1 year was a bit of a jump from the 3 month, 3,000 mile myth for me. And this being the most expensive rig and first diesel I have ever owned, a little extra spent on oil is no biggie. Heck I have bought Mobil 1 for even my lawn mower since the '80's......... And it's always on discounted sale around these parts....
Last edited:
panthermike, to be honest I don't have a time limit plan in mind. I intended to use UOA results as a primary indicator.
"basic UOA's aren't a true indicator of everything that's happening inside of an engine"
I also understand the logic behind that statement and realize that the oil cannot reside there indefinitely. I just don't think I'm there yet.
"basic UOA's aren't a true indicator of everything that's happening inside of an engine"
I also understand the logic behind that statement and realize that the oil cannot reside there indefinitely. I just don't think I'm there yet.
Duramax_LMM, I tend to agree with you on this issue. My OLM monitor on board has already abandoned me and reads blank as I've gone more than one year since the last reset. Of course I could just reset it.
I prefer to use the product of my choice (Syn or dino) and change it a frequenty as I see fit. I just don't appreciate being made an example of for doing that as you can probably tell from my previous rant.
I prefer to use the product of my choice (Syn or dino) and change it a frequenty as I see fit. I just don't appreciate being made an example of for doing that as you can probably tell from my previous rant.
Originally Posted By: CdnMax
. One question, when is soot % a problem?
Comments welcome
Soot % 0.3
Detroit Diesel's condemnation value for soot in 4 stroke engines like my MB906 is 4.5%
I will soon post a UOA with ~22000 miles (about 600 hrs) on Delvac 1 SHC 5W40 (with 8.5L of various MB228.5 oils as makeup to the 29L pan).
If it is good, I may try a 1200 hr (~45000 mi) OCI next.
Charlie
. One question, when is soot % a problem?
Comments welcome
Soot % 0.3
Detroit Diesel's condemnation value for soot in 4 stroke engines like my MB906 is 4.5%
I will soon post a UOA with ~22000 miles (about 600 hrs) on Delvac 1 SHC 5W40 (with 8.5L of various MB228.5 oils as makeup to the 29L pan).
If it is good, I may try a 1200 hr (~45000 mi) OCI next.
Charlie
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
CdnMax -
My apologies if I offended you. However, as you stated and admitted, "comments welcome", so I foolishly took that as an open invitation to speak out with facts and data for my position. Further, in your initial thread you did not restrict the topic to ONLY that oil brand/grade of lube; had you asked for comments only from those persons that also use/used RL lubes, that would have changes things for me as well. You posted an open invitation without restriction; that's the response I offered. If you've read my nearly 2500 posts, then you should recognize I have a dark, satirical sense of writing. That in mind, please allow me to openly offer my sincere regret for answering your post in a manner that apparently made you upset; that was not my intent.
To get back on topic:
You did mention the soot, and there were few direct comments. Here's mine on that as well:
I presume you used Blackstone, by the general layout of your post. If not, that changes my viewpoint; but for now, I'm going on that assumption. So, as for soot, you cannot get a direct reading from a Blackstone UOA, but they include the soot in the insolubles count. (Other labs break it out seperately). Generally, soot at 3.5% is a concern, or insolubles above .6 is a concern; as always, some situations will be slightly different, depending upon lab used, equipment used, etc. (YMMV).
Consider that you used a synthetic oil, with an expensive bypass filter, for the same duration and type use as my dino oil with only a full flow filter, and yet my insolubles were actually LOWER than yours, and the wear metals were nearly the same. (Statistically, there isn't enough difference in all the UOAs from Blackstone to warrant discussion over the .1 difference, so let's just consider the two UOA points equal). However, my UOA was based upon a sump that was 20% underfilled. Had I topped off along the way and near the end, it would have diluted the oil with fresh fluids, and dropped my contaminants lower, helped my vis, and lowered my wear metal count even further. It shows something I've argued about for years now. The oil additives are what control contamination in (reasonably) fresh sump systems. Until the additives are overwhelmed, the oil is what is in control, and not the filtration when soot is still very small. Since a bypass filter only sees 10% of the total volume of flow for any full sump cycle, then the bypass filter cannot be the controlling entity. Rather, the anti-agglomerate portion of the additive package is in control. Until that is overwhelmed, filters don't assist with small particles. Soot starts out sub-micron generally, so even bypass filtration is not especially effective until the particles get 2-3um or so. And particles that small are of no consequence to engines in general. Depending upon your source of info, particles in the 5-15um range are really the big damaging range to fear. So, as long as the oil additive can keep the soot/insolubles down in size, the bypass filter is moot and the full flow filter does not need to catch stuff that is too small to be of consequence. Really big chunks of particulate are caught by the full flow filter because it sees 100% of the total volume per cycle.
I also would point out that a particle count would show some clear evidence that a bypass filter does a "better" job at lowering particulate, but what REALLY matters is how the particulate either does (or does not) affect wear. In the case of our engines, the particulate count was low enough in both to not adversely alter engine wear. Since I don't have a bypass filter, and yet our results are the same, the only logical conclusion to draw is that filtration below a certain level makes no difference in short-to-moderate OCIs; the oil controls soot, not the filter. Contamination is only an issue if it results in wear. No matter how large or small the particles are, if they don't do damage, they don't matter. A particle count will tell us of the size of particles and quantify them, but it wil not tell us how much damage is occuring. Only the wear metal analysis will infer that, short of a full tear down. This is akin to a large debate I had at another site. Filter do NOT affect an engine directly; they INdirectly affect the engine. Filters DIRECTLY affect the oil. As long as contamination is low enough, regardles of method, then wear will be low accordingly. Filtration is a method; cleanliness is an effect. Do not confuse causation with correlation.
Now, at this junction I hope I haven't ticked off again. But, let me be blunt. Your expensive oil and filter did no better at controlling soot/insolubles than my dino oil with regular filter, because the mileage accumulated was not great enough to yet overwhelm the minimalist approach of my conventional oil and filter.
If you stated that you were intending to do UOAs every 10k km, and OCI up to 50k km on the same load and filter set up over several years, then I'd applaud your approach. Allow me to ask; what is your intent?
Sir, you may not like my many posts, nor my approach, so I'll let the UOAs speak for themselves. It's clear that for the given conditions where you and I used our vehicles in a VERY similar manner, the evidence shows these two different methods of maintenance (syn with bypass vs. dino with conventional filtration) result in essentially the same relative sump health and engine health.
Facts and data are what matter to me, not mythology and rhetoric. If you want to constrain the conversation to ONLY RL lubes and ONLY by those who use them, please say so up front. Otherwise, I'm going to put in my two-cents.
You have a good UOA. So do I. You spent 4x more money to get the same results. This website is for the free and open exchange of ideas and information. I responded to your open post because, initially, you didn't restrict it. You may want to shoot the messenger, but that does not alter the reality of the situation.
My final thought is to make sure that all of those following along understand that I did not mean to offend you; for that I am sorry.
My apologies if I offended you. However, as you stated and admitted, "comments welcome", so I foolishly took that as an open invitation to speak out with facts and data for my position. Further, in your initial thread you did not restrict the topic to ONLY that oil brand/grade of lube; had you asked for comments only from those persons that also use/used RL lubes, that would have changes things for me as well. You posted an open invitation without restriction; that's the response I offered. If you've read my nearly 2500 posts, then you should recognize I have a dark, satirical sense of writing. That in mind, please allow me to openly offer my sincere regret for answering your post in a manner that apparently made you upset; that was not my intent.
To get back on topic:
You did mention the soot, and there were few direct comments. Here's mine on that as well:
I presume you used Blackstone, by the general layout of your post. If not, that changes my viewpoint; but for now, I'm going on that assumption. So, as for soot, you cannot get a direct reading from a Blackstone UOA, but they include the soot in the insolubles count. (Other labs break it out seperately). Generally, soot at 3.5% is a concern, or insolubles above .6 is a concern; as always, some situations will be slightly different, depending upon lab used, equipment used, etc. (YMMV).
Consider that you used a synthetic oil, with an expensive bypass filter, for the same duration and type use as my dino oil with only a full flow filter, and yet my insolubles were actually LOWER than yours, and the wear metals were nearly the same. (Statistically, there isn't enough difference in all the UOAs from Blackstone to warrant discussion over the .1 difference, so let's just consider the two UOA points equal). However, my UOA was based upon a sump that was 20% underfilled. Had I topped off along the way and near the end, it would have diluted the oil with fresh fluids, and dropped my contaminants lower, helped my vis, and lowered my wear metal count even further. It shows something I've argued about for years now. The oil additives are what control contamination in (reasonably) fresh sump systems. Until the additives are overwhelmed, the oil is what is in control, and not the filtration when soot is still very small. Since a bypass filter only sees 10% of the total volume of flow for any full sump cycle, then the bypass filter cannot be the controlling entity. Rather, the anti-agglomerate portion of the additive package is in control. Until that is overwhelmed, filters don't assist with small particles. Soot starts out sub-micron generally, so even bypass filtration is not especially effective until the particles get 2-3um or so. And particles that small are of no consequence to engines in general. Depending upon your source of info, particles in the 5-15um range are really the big damaging range to fear. So, as long as the oil additive can keep the soot/insolubles down in size, the bypass filter is moot and the full flow filter does not need to catch stuff that is too small to be of consequence. Really big chunks of particulate are caught by the full flow filter because it sees 100% of the total volume per cycle.
I also would point out that a particle count would show some clear evidence that a bypass filter does a "better" job at lowering particulate, but what REALLY matters is how the particulate either does (or does not) affect wear. In the case of our engines, the particulate count was low enough in both to not adversely alter engine wear. Since I don't have a bypass filter, and yet our results are the same, the only logical conclusion to draw is that filtration below a certain level makes no difference in short-to-moderate OCIs; the oil controls soot, not the filter. Contamination is only an issue if it results in wear. No matter how large or small the particles are, if they don't do damage, they don't matter. A particle count will tell us of the size of particles and quantify them, but it wil not tell us how much damage is occuring. Only the wear metal analysis will infer that, short of a full tear down. This is akin to a large debate I had at another site. Filter do NOT affect an engine directly; they INdirectly affect the engine. Filters DIRECTLY affect the oil. As long as contamination is low enough, regardles of method, then wear will be low accordingly. Filtration is a method; cleanliness is an effect. Do not confuse causation with correlation.
Now, at this junction I hope I haven't ticked off again. But, let me be blunt. Your expensive oil and filter did no better at controlling soot/insolubles than my dino oil with regular filter, because the mileage accumulated was not great enough to yet overwhelm the minimalist approach of my conventional oil and filter.
If you stated that you were intending to do UOAs every 10k km, and OCI up to 50k km on the same load and filter set up over several years, then I'd applaud your approach. Allow me to ask; what is your intent?
Sir, you may not like my many posts, nor my approach, so I'll let the UOAs speak for themselves. It's clear that for the given conditions where you and I used our vehicles in a VERY similar manner, the evidence shows these two different methods of maintenance (syn with bypass vs. dino with conventional filtration) result in essentially the same relative sump health and engine health.
Facts and data are what matter to me, not mythology and rhetoric. If you want to constrain the conversation to ONLY RL lubes and ONLY by those who use them, please say so up front. Otherwise, I'm going to put in my two-cents.
You have a good UOA. So do I. You spent 4x more money to get the same results. This website is for the free and open exchange of ideas and information. I responded to your open post because, initially, you didn't restrict it. You may want to shoot the messenger, but that does not alter the reality of the situation.
My final thought is to make sure that all of those following along understand that I did not mean to offend you; for that I am sorry.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CdnMax
panthermike, to be honest I don't have a time limit plan in mind. I intended to use UOA results as a primary indicator.
"basic UOA's aren't a true indicator of everything that's happening inside of an engine"
I also understand the logic behind that statement and realize that the oil cannot reside there indefinitely. I just don't think I'm there yet.
I agree with you, I think this oil still has life in it for sure.
panthermike, to be honest I don't have a time limit plan in mind. I intended to use UOA results as a primary indicator.
"basic UOA's aren't a true indicator of everything that's happening inside of an engine"
I also understand the logic behind that statement and realize that the oil cannot reside there indefinitely. I just don't think I'm there yet.
I agree with you, I think this oil still has life in it for sure.
dnewton3,
Thanks for your reply. When you do stick to the "facts and data" you can provide some very useful and insightful information as you've done here and countless times in the past.
It's when you use words like "foolish", "keep his hands of the wrenches" and "wasting money big time", I have trouble placing them in either the facts or data catagory and, as you say in your response that is all that matters to you. That is where I take unbrage to your reply.
Just to put your mind at ease I'll give you some insight to my situation which you knew nothing about before your reply deviated from a review on the UOA results on their own merit, to a discussion on simple economics, dino vs synthetic and good decisions vs bad ones.
I purchased the oil from a co-worker who had his diesel truck totaled in an accident and didn't plan on replacing it with another diesel anytime soon. I paid less than $0.30 on the dollar for that oil. Would I pay retail? At this point I can't say yes or no as I have yet to see the maximum performance this oil may deliver. Both in wear protection and run life.
If you review any of my previous posts (prior to this issue) you would see that I've run dino oil in the past also. Basically I use what I use because I use what I want. I haven't taken sides in any dino vs syn argument and I really don't have a dog in that fight and don't care to. Others appear to be heavily invested in that discussion and will use whatever "facts" they see fit to support their position. In the previous thread you said I paid 3 times what you did for oil and in this one you say 4 times. Specific to my oil in this case it wouldn't be 2 times and I don't think its even possible to pay 4 times more where I live in Canada. But really none of that is germaine to what I was expecting when I first posted the UOA.
I posted for two reasons which I guess I didn't make clear enough at the time. One reason is to add to the database of information of UOA's on this site. The second was to solicit comments on the UOA based on the data contained in the UOA and it own merits. I was expecting to get comments at face value on the UOA results. I wasn't expecting to be the poster boy for a syn vs dino/cost benefit analysis but it is a free country. As I've already said though, I would have preferred if that was posted in your own thread.
I never intended to restrict replies to RL users nor did I say that. What I was hoping to get was insightful information for anyone with UOA experience or knowledge. I also never touted the superiority of syn vs dino nor did I post a single syllable of any such rhetoric which you seem to allude to.
Now on to the important stuff, you had some questions.
1. Fluidlife is the company I used for this analysis.
2. My intent? My intent for this oil/filter combination is no different than it would be if I were to use the cheapest oil and filter I could find. Use it until it is used up and no longer providing the service for which it was implemented for. That's one of the reasons I did a UOA. If this oil will last 50,000km so be it. If it is used up at 15,000, it is what it is. When I reach that point, and only then can I or anyone else for that matter make a valid judgement on choice and do a proper cost/benefit analysis. If my intent was to dump the sump at 5000k I wouldn't waste money on high priced oil, filter systems and UOA's. As we've seen in the past, practically any spec'd oil and cheap filter can go 5.
You seem intent on comparing our analyses and claiming some sort of victory on the basis of 4x costs (real or imagined) and it serves your purpose to do so. You also claim your right to do so under the free exchange of information on this forum. You've clearly staked your position on syn vs dino and publish supporting data every chance you get. If that's what floats your boat, feel free I guess, its just not my bag.
All I know is that the oil in my sump will be staying there for now and the foreseeable future. What will be the final result and mileage? I don't know and we won't have the Paul Harvey on that until that time is reached and all the relevant data is in.
At that time I may or may not post the miles/kms run and final analysis. If I do though, rest assured it will be done to provide that data for the benefit of others to see and draw their own conclusions and it won't be presented in a manner that allows me to beat my chest and pat myself on the back for the brilliance of my choices or to pee on someone else's fire. It will contain only facts and data without editorial comment. That's just how I roll. Live and let live, and to each his own.
Oh, I almost forgot. You'd be surprised what you can pick up a new FS2500 filter system for on eBay when the seller has a low reserve and no one else bids on it. But that's a story for another day.
Hopefully we can now put this issue to rest as you and I have both wasted too much time deviating from the facts and data.
Thanks for your reply. When you do stick to the "facts and data" you can provide some very useful and insightful information as you've done here and countless times in the past.
It's when you use words like "foolish", "keep his hands of the wrenches" and "wasting money big time", I have trouble placing them in either the facts or data catagory and, as you say in your response that is all that matters to you. That is where I take unbrage to your reply.
Just to put your mind at ease I'll give you some insight to my situation which you knew nothing about before your reply deviated from a review on the UOA results on their own merit, to a discussion on simple economics, dino vs synthetic and good decisions vs bad ones.
I purchased the oil from a co-worker who had his diesel truck totaled in an accident and didn't plan on replacing it with another diesel anytime soon. I paid less than $0.30 on the dollar for that oil. Would I pay retail? At this point I can't say yes or no as I have yet to see the maximum performance this oil may deliver. Both in wear protection and run life.
If you review any of my previous posts (prior to this issue) you would see that I've run dino oil in the past also. Basically I use what I use because I use what I want. I haven't taken sides in any dino vs syn argument and I really don't have a dog in that fight and don't care to. Others appear to be heavily invested in that discussion and will use whatever "facts" they see fit to support their position. In the previous thread you said I paid 3 times what you did for oil and in this one you say 4 times. Specific to my oil in this case it wouldn't be 2 times and I don't think its even possible to pay 4 times more where I live in Canada. But really none of that is germaine to what I was expecting when I first posted the UOA.
I posted for two reasons which I guess I didn't make clear enough at the time. One reason is to add to the database of information of UOA's on this site. The second was to solicit comments on the UOA based on the data contained in the UOA and it own merits. I was expecting to get comments at face value on the UOA results. I wasn't expecting to be the poster boy for a syn vs dino/cost benefit analysis but it is a free country. As I've already said though, I would have preferred if that was posted in your own thread.
I never intended to restrict replies to RL users nor did I say that. What I was hoping to get was insightful information for anyone with UOA experience or knowledge. I also never touted the superiority of syn vs dino nor did I post a single syllable of any such rhetoric which you seem to allude to.
Now on to the important stuff, you had some questions.
1. Fluidlife is the company I used for this analysis.
2. My intent? My intent for this oil/filter combination is no different than it would be if I were to use the cheapest oil and filter I could find. Use it until it is used up and no longer providing the service for which it was implemented for. That's one of the reasons I did a UOA. If this oil will last 50,000km so be it. If it is used up at 15,000, it is what it is. When I reach that point, and only then can I or anyone else for that matter make a valid judgement on choice and do a proper cost/benefit analysis. If my intent was to dump the sump at 5000k I wouldn't waste money on high priced oil, filter systems and UOA's. As we've seen in the past, practically any spec'd oil and cheap filter can go 5.
You seem intent on comparing our analyses and claiming some sort of victory on the basis of 4x costs (real or imagined) and it serves your purpose to do so. You also claim your right to do so under the free exchange of information on this forum. You've clearly staked your position on syn vs dino and publish supporting data every chance you get. If that's what floats your boat, feel free I guess, its just not my bag.
All I know is that the oil in my sump will be staying there for now and the foreseeable future. What will be the final result and mileage? I don't know and we won't have the Paul Harvey on that until that time is reached and all the relevant data is in.
At that time I may or may not post the miles/kms run and final analysis. If I do though, rest assured it will be done to provide that data for the benefit of others to see and draw their own conclusions and it won't be presented in a manner that allows me to beat my chest and pat myself on the back for the brilliance of my choices or to pee on someone else's fire. It will contain only facts and data without editorial comment. That's just how I roll. Live and let live, and to each his own.
Oh, I almost forgot. You'd be surprised what you can pick up a new FS2500 filter system for on eBay when the seller has a low reserve and no one else bids on it. But that's a story for another day.
Hopefully we can now put this issue to rest as you and I have both wasted too much time deviating from the facts and data.
dnewton3
Staff member
UOAs are, first and foremost, supposed to be fiscal tools to help promote the largest ROI in a lube maintenance program. Albiet, here on BITOG, they are most often used as toys because many people don't understand their true use, or how to scrutinize them for their true value. Most people think that the goal is to get the lowest reading, but the REAL pay-back is in extending ANY lube to it's fullest, longest OCI. To that end, my making comments on your wrenches and such play into a monetary decision, which is based upon the facts of expense to duration of use. The "cost" of your OCI is affected by the duration of the OCI. That's not an "opinion" but a fact. And I commented on how your cost will change based upon your actions. It seems you take issue moreso with my delivery method than the actual analysis. So, again, I find myself in a postion to offer the olive brand and say that I don't mean to tick you off.
That in mind, I don't think I wasted any time or effort in this conversation. That you initially with-held important tid-bits like getting oil for 30% of retail and scored a bypass on the cheap, significantly shifts the fiscal analysis. But only for your personal situation. The "4x" factor is very real for the rest of the world. I admit that I made a presumption that you paid at or near retail for your set up, but you must admit that was a fair presumption, given the initial absence of your "other" information. Your financial scores on the cheap drastically alter the fiscal review, but they do not change the UOA evidence.
So many times we hear how synthetics are "better", but people don't define or otherwise confine their statments to what "better" means. The UOAs that you and I have show that "better" cannot be achieved in short-to-moderate OCIs. This evidence resounds time and time again. And yet the synthetic mythology persists. The same can be said for bypass filtration. How many times do we hear that bypass filters will make an engine last longer, but the data does not support that conclusion in short-to-moderate OCIs. Forget the oil, look at the wear and soot we each had. For the exposure we had, did you get less wear or soot? No you did not. That is a very important point that should not go unsaid. That is a comment that was not directly obvious to some people from just reading the UOAs; it may not occur to them.
Here's a synopsis of the facts (this is not a slight on you or your choice, but a fair recap of the data):
Comparing our UOAs: similar trucks, similar exposure, similar environmental concerns, similar severity of use, similar UOA results.
Contrasting our OCIs: a normal person (without the advantage of getting oil from his buddy's misfortune) is going to see a minimum of a 3x factor for the oil, and it will move up to 4x for the bypass filter system including elements (and don't forget that the added capacity of the bypass filter takes another quart of oil to fill, thereby adding to the cost as well). 4x is a VERY REAL, FAIR estimate for "normal" folks if they tried to duplicate your full set-up.
As for my posts ad nauseum and detailed analysis, that is also what this site is for. If you wish to post minimal facts, and let others glean what they may, that's perfectly fine. But there are also members here that seek insight past the raw numbers; they want comments and details so that the numbers make sense to them. I am one of those people.
That in mind, I don't think I wasted any time or effort in this conversation. That you initially with-held important tid-bits like getting oil for 30% of retail and scored a bypass on the cheap, significantly shifts the fiscal analysis. But only for your personal situation. The "4x" factor is very real for the rest of the world. I admit that I made a presumption that you paid at or near retail for your set up, but you must admit that was a fair presumption, given the initial absence of your "other" information. Your financial scores on the cheap drastically alter the fiscal review, but they do not change the UOA evidence.
So many times we hear how synthetics are "better", but people don't define or otherwise confine their statments to what "better" means. The UOAs that you and I have show that "better" cannot be achieved in short-to-moderate OCIs. This evidence resounds time and time again. And yet the synthetic mythology persists. The same can be said for bypass filtration. How many times do we hear that bypass filters will make an engine last longer, but the data does not support that conclusion in short-to-moderate OCIs. Forget the oil, look at the wear and soot we each had. For the exposure we had, did you get less wear or soot? No you did not. That is a very important point that should not go unsaid. That is a comment that was not directly obvious to some people from just reading the UOAs; it may not occur to them.
Here's a synopsis of the facts (this is not a slight on you or your choice, but a fair recap of the data):
Comparing our UOAs: similar trucks, similar exposure, similar environmental concerns, similar severity of use, similar UOA results.
Contrasting our OCIs: a normal person (without the advantage of getting oil from his buddy's misfortune) is going to see a minimum of a 3x factor for the oil, and it will move up to 4x for the bypass filter system including elements (and don't forget that the added capacity of the bypass filter takes another quart of oil to fill, thereby adding to the cost as well). 4x is a VERY REAL, FAIR estimate for "normal" folks if they tried to duplicate your full set-up.
As for my posts ad nauseum and detailed analysis, that is also what this site is for. If you wish to post minimal facts, and let others glean what they may, that's perfectly fine. But there are also members here that seek insight past the raw numbers; they want comments and details so that the numbers make sense to them. I am one of those people.
Last edited:
A TBN test would be a good investment-given how easy the average Duramax is on oil-you could conceivably go well over 25,000 miles on it, only topping off when you change the FS2500 filter!
I agree, I think a TBN test will become almost a necessity as the miles add up on this oil as the standard analysis parameters like I've posted won't tell the whole story.
dnewton3,
Just to set the record straight, I didn't withhold anything from anybody.
I posted everything that was necessary in the way of information required to evaluate the analysis on the merits of the data contained in the analysis and to receive the type of feedback I was looking for, for the reasons I posted earlier. To refresh your memory, I was looking for feedback on the analysis results on a stand alone basis. Nothing more and nothing less.
That you didn't get enough tid-bits to do a proper cost/benefit analysis specific to my situation in order to conduct your repetative syn vs dino flag planting wasn't my problem.
It was never my intention to be grist for your mill.
It's only when you went off on a tangent and drew improper conclusions on a thread posting that I had started that I felt it necessary to clue you into my specifics.
Had you done your schooling of the unwashed masses in your own post of your own oil you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.
Just to set the record straight, I didn't withhold anything from anybody.
I posted everything that was necessary in the way of information required to evaluate the analysis on the merits of the data contained in the analysis and to receive the type of feedback I was looking for, for the reasons I posted earlier. To refresh your memory, I was looking for feedback on the analysis results on a stand alone basis. Nothing more and nothing less.
That you didn't get enough tid-bits to do a proper cost/benefit analysis specific to my situation in order to conduct your repetative syn vs dino flag planting wasn't my problem.
It was never my intention to be grist for your mill.
It's only when you went off on a tangent and drew improper conclusions on a thread posting that I had started that I felt it necessary to clue you into my specifics.
Had you done your schooling of the unwashed masses in your own post of your own oil you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.
dnewton3
Staff member
In the spirit of your initial quest, and apparent appreciation for specificity and brevity:
Your RL UOA is typical of any UOA from a Duramax engine, regardless of brand/grade/stock of lubricant and type of filtration, with moderate OCI exposure.
That is clearly evident from the close proximity of all your readings to those of universal averages, which represent a large marketplace homogenization of all products used in such application. And that would lead the "unwashed masses" to conclude that it really does not matter what lube and filtration one chooses for this task.
Your RL UOA is typical of any UOA from a Duramax engine, regardless of brand/grade/stock of lubricant and type of filtration, with moderate OCI exposure.
That is clearly evident from the close proximity of all your readings to those of universal averages, which represent a large marketplace homogenization of all products used in such application. And that would lead the "unwashed masses" to conclude that it really does not matter what lube and filtration one chooses for this task.
Last edited:
Here my latest UOA from a few months ago
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...394#Post2386394
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...394#Post2386394
- Status
Similar threads
