Ok, since Ive owned my 01 7.3 I ran I oci with valvoline blue dino 15w40 all the rest rotella dino 15w40 how are we going to conduct this test? I am dew a oil change in spring, I am willing to get a uoa to set a baseline,so were do we go from here. BTY I have a maintenance background as well,not that it really matters ,just so you know.
T6 rorella 5w40 in my 01 7.3 power stroke
- Thread starter silver1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bambam
OMG you have to be an engineer to conduct a test??? Y
Hahahahaha, if you have to ask....... so obvious.....
OMG you have to be an engineer to conduct a test??? Y
Hahahahaha, if you have to ask....... so obvious.....
In my opinion, 5k mile OCIs are too short in this application to really test the limits of name-brand oils that meet the spec. this engine requires. Hopefully it's accepted that wear metal concentrations in basic UOAs should not be equated to being proportional to actual wear.
Originally Posted By: silver1
Ok, since Ive owned my 01 7.3 I ran I oci with valvoline blue dino 15w40 all the rest rotella dino 15w40 how are we going to conduct this test?
I recommend using the following ASTM, CEC, and JASO tests:
D 892 Test Method for Foaming Characteristics of Lubricating Oils
D 975 Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils
D 3945 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle
D 5533 Sequence IIIE Engine Test (or the updated Sequence IIIF)
D 5800 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
D 5966 Test Method for Roller Follower Wear Test
D 5967 Test Method for Evaluation of Soot Control
D 6594 Test Method for Evaluation of Corrosiveness of Diesel Engine Oil at 135oC
D 6983 Test Method for Evaluation of Ring and Liner Wear
RR D02-1379 Engine Oil Aeration Test
CEC L-52-T-97 OM 441 LA test for Bore Polish and Piston Deposits
CEC L-85-T-99 Oxidative Induction Time for Oils using Pressure Differential Scanning Calorimetry
CEC L-39-T-96 Elastomer Compatibility Test
CEC L-36-A-90 HT/HS Viscosity by Ravenfield Viscometer
CEC L-14-A-93 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle Shear
CEC L-40-A-93 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
JASO M 354-1999 Test Method for Evaluation of Valvetrain Wear Performance
Ok, since Ive owned my 01 7.3 I ran I oci with valvoline blue dino 15w40 all the rest rotella dino 15w40 how are we going to conduct this test?
I recommend using the following ASTM, CEC, and JASO tests:
D 892 Test Method for Foaming Characteristics of Lubricating Oils
D 975 Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils
D 3945 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle
D 5533 Sequence IIIE Engine Test (or the updated Sequence IIIF)
D 5800 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
D 5966 Test Method for Roller Follower Wear Test
D 5967 Test Method for Evaluation of Soot Control
D 6594 Test Method for Evaluation of Corrosiveness of Diesel Engine Oil at 135oC
D 6983 Test Method for Evaluation of Ring and Liner Wear
RR D02-1379 Engine Oil Aeration Test
CEC L-52-T-97 OM 441 LA test for Bore Polish and Piston Deposits
CEC L-85-T-99 Oxidative Induction Time for Oils using Pressure Differential Scanning Calorimetry
CEC L-39-T-96 Elastomer Compatibility Test
CEC L-36-A-90 HT/HS Viscosity by Ravenfield Viscometer
CEC L-14-A-93 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle Shear
CEC L-40-A-93 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
JASO M 354-1999 Test Method for Evaluation of Valvetrain Wear Performance
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'll offer to pay for one dino sump load and one dino UOA for the OP at 5k miles. AZsynthetic or CdnMax can offer to pay for a RL OCI and UOA at 5k miles. We will hold as many crieteria constant as possible (lab, duration, etc). Whichever UOA shows "better" results, relative to the cost structure ratio, wins and gets the money back. We could have the money held in escrow by a impartial third party member here.
You make me laugh, thanks.
In my line of work, your proposed experiment would be laughed right out of the meeting room and funding denied. Give me any truck and any oil and I can generate a terrible UOA in 5K miles. I prefer to stick with controlled industry standard tests already done by the oil and car manufacturers.
A better idea would be for you to write to Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. and ask them which oil is better for your vehicle. I got a hundred bucks it is synthetic.
I have no idea what your issue is here.
All I suggested is that we let the OP (Silver1) decide for himself by seeing his own situation dictate the correct decision. I'm confident that given his stated use and circumstances, dino's will do every bit as well. I wasn't asking you to "generate a terrible UOA"; I was asking for you to pay your share to prove your point, and I'll do the same. Sounds to me like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. How is it that you suspect a synthetic would produce a terrible UOA? I certainly don't suspect a dino would generate a terrible UOA.
As for the Ford, GM, Chrysler, Totota suggestion, I don't have to write them. Their recommendations are in all the owners manuals. Please show me (in an application such as this) where they show preference to synthetics. Typically, as well all would recognize, they simply call out the appropriate API grade and spec for the condition current at time of manufacture.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'll offer to pay for one dino sump load and one dino UOA for the OP at 5k miles. AZsynthetic or CdnMax can offer to pay for a RL OCI and UOA at 5k miles. We will hold as many crieteria constant as possible (lab, duration, etc). Whichever UOA shows "better" results, relative to the cost structure ratio, wins and gets the money back. We could have the money held in escrow by a impartial third party member here.
You make me laugh, thanks.
In my line of work, your proposed experiment would be laughed right out of the meeting room and funding denied. Give me any truck and any oil and I can generate a terrible UOA in 5K miles. I prefer to stick with controlled industry standard tests already done by the oil and car manufacturers.
A better idea would be for you to write to Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. and ask them which oil is better for your vehicle. I got a hundred bucks it is synthetic.
I have no idea what your issue is here.
All I suggested is that we let the OP (Silver1) decide for himself by seeing his own situation dictate the correct decision. I'm confident that given his stated use and circumstances, dino's will do every bit as well. I wasn't asking you to "generate a terrible UOA"; I was asking for you to pay your share to prove your point, and I'll do the same. Sounds to me like you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. How is it that you suspect a synthetic would produce a terrible UOA? I certainly don't suspect a dino would generate a terrible UOA.
As for the Ford, GM, Chrysler, Totota suggestion, I don't have to write them. Their recommendations are in all the owners manuals. Please show me (in an application such as this) where they show preference to synthetics. Typically, as well all would recognize, they simply call out the appropriate API grade and spec for the condition current at time of manufacture.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: hatt
How many decades is it going to take to see any potential benefit with a 7.3 being driven 5K a year?
Who cares? We are talking about 5K oil change interval not 5K per year.
Actaully, you need to read a bit closer.
Way back, the Silver1 indicated that his OCI is approximately 5-7k miles a year.
Originally Posted By: silver1
... put mabey 5-7k A year ...
Hence, my suggestion to run a 5k mile OCI. Also, as many people pointed out, the 7.3L PSD has an OEM OCI for "normal" service of 5k miles. So, my suggestion was to OCI and UOA at the 5k miles; it meets his projected annual mileage, and does not require him to extend his OCI past the OEM limit (although I suspect it would come back OK anyway).
Originally Posted By: hatt
How many decades is it going to take to see any potential benefit with a 7.3 being driven 5K a year?
Who cares? We are talking about 5K oil change interval not 5K per year.
Actaully, you need to read a bit closer.
Way back, the Silver1 indicated that his OCI is approximately 5-7k miles a year.
Originally Posted By: silver1
... put mabey 5-7k A year ...
Hence, my suggestion to run a 5k mile OCI. Also, as many people pointed out, the 7.3L PSD has an OEM OCI for "normal" service of 5k miles. So, my suggestion was to OCI and UOA at the 5k miles; it meets his projected annual mileage, and does not require him to extend his OCI past the OEM limit (although I suspect it would come back OK anyway).
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: silver1
Ok, since Ive owned my 01 7.3 I ran I oci with valvoline blue dino 15w40 all the rest rotella dino 15w40 how are we going to conduct this test?
I recommend using the following ASTM, CEC, and JASO tests:
D 892 Test Method for Foaming Characteristics of Lubricating Oils
D 975 Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils
D 3945 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle
D 5533 Sequence IIIE Engine Test (or the updated Sequence IIIF)
D 5800 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
D 5966 Test Method for Roller Follower Wear Test
D 5967 Test Method for Evaluation of Soot Control
D 6594 Test Method for Evaluation of Corrosiveness of Diesel Engine Oil at 135oC
D 6983 Test Method for Evaluation of Ring and Liner Wear
RR D02-1379 Engine Oil Aeration Test
CEC L-52-T-97 OM 441 LA test for Bore Polish and Piston Deposits
CEC L-85-T-99 Oxidative Induction Time for Oils using Pressure Differential Scanning Calorimetry
CEC L-39-T-96 Elastomer Compatibility Test
CEC L-36-A-90 HT/HS Viscosity by Ravenfield Viscometer
CEC L-14-A-93 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle Shear
CEC L-40-A-93 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
JASO M 354-1999 Test Method for Evaluation of Valvetrain Wear Performance
Great list.
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
Allow me to be specific:
I state that a quality conventional CJ-4 API lube (we'll use what the OP has been using; VPB IIRC) will perform within statistical standard devitation in regard to wear metal performance as compared to universal averages, and contrasted to the performance of a high-end synthetic, over a "normal" OEM OCI duration of 5k miles. Further, I state that the synthetic will not provide a "benefit" of lower wear equal or near to the cost ratio for it's purchase price. This is presuming all other inputs are held as consistent as possible, within the ability of the OP to do so, and presumes all operational characteristics are controlled (no abnormal contamination fuel, dirt, coolant intrusion, etc).
You poo-poo'd my comparisons saying my Dmax and CdnMax's UOAs were not "the same". (Even though any sane person would see the huge similarities of trucks, mileage, use and results). So, I suggested that we use the same person, same truck, same conditions to prove my point.
Once again, will you pay for your share to support your position? Some have even offered to pay a portion to help you offset the costs. I'll pay the whole dino portion. Whichever UOA shows "better" performance relative to the cost ratio, allows the person to get his money back. If the synthetic does not provide a "better" UOA with "x" lower wear metals, then it did not succeed at the task you profess it can.
Silver1, please send me a PM and we'll look at getting together in the spring to coincide with your expected OCI; you and I are both in Indiana so it would be easy to do so. We'll do a documentation article to post up, with pictures, etc.
Originally Posted By: silver1
Ok, since Ive owned my 01 7.3 I ran I oci with valvoline blue dino 15w40 all the rest rotella dino 15w40 how are we going to conduct this test?
I recommend using the following ASTM, CEC, and JASO tests:
D 892 Test Method for Foaming Characteristics of Lubricating Oils
D 975 Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils
D 3945 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle
D 5533 Sequence IIIE Engine Test (or the updated Sequence IIIF)
D 5800 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
D 5966 Test Method for Roller Follower Wear Test
D 5967 Test Method for Evaluation of Soot Control
D 6594 Test Method for Evaluation of Corrosiveness of Diesel Engine Oil at 135oC
D 6983 Test Method for Evaluation of Ring and Liner Wear
RR D02-1379 Engine Oil Aeration Test
CEC L-52-T-97 OM 441 LA test for Bore Polish and Piston Deposits
CEC L-85-T-99 Oxidative Induction Time for Oils using Pressure Differential Scanning Calorimetry
CEC L-39-T-96 Elastomer Compatibility Test
CEC L-36-A-90 HT/HS Viscosity by Ravenfield Viscometer
CEC L-14-A-93 Test Method for Shear Stability of Polymer Containing Fluids using a Diesel Injector Nozzle Shear
CEC L-40-A-93 Test Method for Evaporation Loss of Lubricating Oils by the Noack Method
JASO M 354-1999 Test Method for Evaluation of Valvetrain Wear Performance
Great list.
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
Allow me to be specific:
I state that a quality conventional CJ-4 API lube (we'll use what the OP has been using; VPB IIRC) will perform within statistical standard devitation in regard to wear metal performance as compared to universal averages, and contrasted to the performance of a high-end synthetic, over a "normal" OEM OCI duration of 5k miles. Further, I state that the synthetic will not provide a "benefit" of lower wear equal or near to the cost ratio for it's purchase price. This is presuming all other inputs are held as consistent as possible, within the ability of the OP to do so, and presumes all operational characteristics are controlled (no abnormal contamination fuel, dirt, coolant intrusion, etc).
You poo-poo'd my comparisons saying my Dmax and CdnMax's UOAs were not "the same". (Even though any sane person would see the huge similarities of trucks, mileage, use and results). So, I suggested that we use the same person, same truck, same conditions to prove my point.
Once again, will you pay for your share to support your position? Some have even offered to pay a portion to help you offset the costs. I'll pay the whole dino portion. Whichever UOA shows "better" performance relative to the cost ratio, allows the person to get his money back. If the synthetic does not provide a "better" UOA with "x" lower wear metals, then it did not succeed at the task you profess it can.
Silver1, please send me a PM and we'll look at getting together in the spring to coincide with your expected OCI; you and I are both in Indiana so it would be easy to do so. We'll do a documentation article to post up, with pictures, etc.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: JAG
In my opinion, 5k mile OCIs are too short in this application to really test the limits of name-brand oils that meet the spec. this engine requires. Hopefully it's accepted that wear metal concentrations in basic UOAs should not be equated to being proportional to actual wear.
I see a few issues with your concerns. Not that you're wrong; it's just that you're pushing the concept past some notable points, regarding the OCI.
1) the OEM OCI is 5k miles
2) the OPs OCI is 5-7k miles
3) my point is that in "short-to-moderate" OCIs, fluids typically don't show any statistical performance difference
I would agree with you that 5k mile OCIs won't really test the limits of the lube, but that is part of the point. At short intervals, there is no performance difference in lubes because they are all more than capable of doing such a task. If you do not push a dino oil past it's capability, then a syn won't have any advantage in real world wear reduction.
As for oil analysis and wear, we seem to go around and around about this.
UOAs are a DIRECT view of lube health; they are in INdirect view of equipment health. However, to infer that you cannot look at a UOA and determine wear is without merit. There are thousands of labs that specfically do this every day. There is an entire industry built around this concept. If we cannot use UOAs to track past wear, and predict future performance, then why ever do a UOA at all? Why even test for wear metals?
Here are some good reads on oil analysis:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28520/setting-oil-analysis-limits
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28522/condition-based-maintenance
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28372/oil-analysis-report
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/27408/Benefits-of-oil-analysis-one
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/27407/Benefits-of-oil-analysis-two
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/27406/Benefits-of-oil-analysis-three
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/2106/an-introduction-to-wearcheck,-part-1
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/2107/an-introduction-to-wearcheck,-part-2
And the list goes on and on and on ...
(note - some of this is obvisously self-promotional, but they don't call their service "Wearcheck" for no good reason ... it is a world-wide technology industry utilized to predict wear)
As an analogy, UOAs are like getting blood work done; it can be done either when you suspect something is wrong, or it can be done as a preventative and predictive tool. When you get a blood draw, you are not only looking at the blood itself, but there are criteria in the blood that tell us how well the body is currently doing, and which direction it is trending. We can see impending heart conditions, cancers, etc. The same concept is true of UOAs. We can see past and current wear conditions, and then make reasonably accurate predictions to the future. We can catch impending problems before they manifest into major catastrophes.
I'm going to disagree with you on this topic. My personal experience, my engineering degree, my engineering experience, my decade of lubrication maintenance programs all point toward UOAs being an efffective tool in tracking and predicting wear. And there's an entire industry built around this very concept. On this, we'll have to agree to disagree.
In my opinion, 5k mile OCIs are too short in this application to really test the limits of name-brand oils that meet the spec. this engine requires. Hopefully it's accepted that wear metal concentrations in basic UOAs should not be equated to being proportional to actual wear.
I see a few issues with your concerns. Not that you're wrong; it's just that you're pushing the concept past some notable points, regarding the OCI.
1) the OEM OCI is 5k miles
2) the OPs OCI is 5-7k miles
3) my point is that in "short-to-moderate" OCIs, fluids typically don't show any statistical performance difference
I would agree with you that 5k mile OCIs won't really test the limits of the lube, but that is part of the point. At short intervals, there is no performance difference in lubes because they are all more than capable of doing such a task. If you do not push a dino oil past it's capability, then a syn won't have any advantage in real world wear reduction.
As for oil analysis and wear, we seem to go around and around about this.
UOAs are a DIRECT view of lube health; they are in INdirect view of equipment health. However, to infer that you cannot look at a UOA and determine wear is without merit. There are thousands of labs that specfically do this every day. There is an entire industry built around this concept. If we cannot use UOAs to track past wear, and predict future performance, then why ever do a UOA at all? Why even test for wear metals?
Here are some good reads on oil analysis:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28520/setting-oil-analysis-limits
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28522/condition-based-maintenance
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28372/oil-analysis-report
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/27408/Benefits-of-oil-analysis-one
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/27407/Benefits-of-oil-analysis-two
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/27406/Benefits-of-oil-analysis-three
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/2106/an-introduction-to-wearcheck,-part-1
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/View/2107/an-introduction-to-wearcheck,-part-2
And the list goes on and on and on ...
(note - some of this is obvisously self-promotional, but they don't call their service "Wearcheck" for no good reason ... it is a world-wide technology industry utilized to predict wear)
As an analogy, UOAs are like getting blood work done; it can be done either when you suspect something is wrong, or it can be done as a preventative and predictive tool. When you get a blood draw, you are not only looking at the blood itself, but there are criteria in the blood that tell us how well the body is currently doing, and which direction it is trending. We can see impending heart conditions, cancers, etc. The same concept is true of UOAs. We can see past and current wear conditions, and then make reasonably accurate predictions to the future. We can catch impending problems before they manifest into major catastrophes.
I'm going to disagree with you on this topic. My personal experience, my engineering degree, my engineering experience, my decade of lubrication maintenance programs all point toward UOAs being an efffective tool in tracking and predicting wear. And there's an entire industry built around this very concept. On this, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
dnewton, we agree on 5k miles being too short to show a definite from more expensive and suitable lubes.
My wording in my previous post was poor. On any one UOA sample, of course a proportionality constant exists to equate actual iron (or CU, PB, etc) wear to the corresponding value in the UOA. I meant to say that across different lubes (also across engines or same engine but different usage), the proportionality constant may vary considerably if the wear particle size distribution varies enough to cause the spectrometer to not ionize the same proportion of the sample. Said differently, one time the spectrometer may have detected 90% of wear element X and on next sample sent in it detected 75% due to a shift in particle size range.
Fortunately, if PQ Index test is also conducted (applies only to iron), we can get a much better idea on actual total amount of iron wear. http://www.wearcheck.com/literature/brochures/wc-pq-analysis.pdf
Just for educational fun, if the PQ Index test is also done, I'd be willing to throw in $20 to the OP if others throw in money as you proposed. If that's done, I recommend we focus on iron wear over other wear elements.
My wording in my previous post was poor. On any one UOA sample, of course a proportionality constant exists to equate actual iron (or CU, PB, etc) wear to the corresponding value in the UOA. I meant to say that across different lubes (also across engines or same engine but different usage), the proportionality constant may vary considerably if the wear particle size distribution varies enough to cause the spectrometer to not ionize the same proportion of the sample. Said differently, one time the spectrometer may have detected 90% of wear element X and on next sample sent in it detected 75% due to a shift in particle size range.
Fortunately, if PQ Index test is also conducted (applies only to iron), we can get a much better idea on actual total amount of iron wear. http://www.wearcheck.com/literature/brochures/wc-pq-analysis.pdf
Just for educational fun, if the PQ Index test is also done, I'd be willing to throw in $20 to the OP if others throw in money as you proposed. If that's done, I recommend we focus on iron wear over other wear elements.
Of course it's possible for a test to be devised that does not measure what the person thinks it does and it's also possible for it to measure what the person thinks it does but the person misinterprets the data, then draws the wrong conclusions. Misinterpretation of UOAs happens often on this site.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
The lube does not know where it has been run. Whether the engine is on the dyno or mounted in the truck is irrelevant. The same tests can be run, it is a matter of cost. There is no other way to be accurate other than to run those tests. UOA on a single engine is useless to draw any conclusion about the oil nor the engine type.
Also, a 5K OCI or 5K per year OCI is irrelevant as shown by how OLM is designed and implemented. Oil does not go bad in a year, it's how you drive the 5K miles and that is my point. Two people driving the same truck with the same oil can generate two completely different UOAs. Who's righ and who's wrong or is it the oil's fault or the engine or the location (Indiana?)
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
The lube does not know where it has been run. Whether the engine is on the dyno or mounted in the truck is irrelevant. The same tests can be run, it is a matter of cost. There is no other way to be accurate other than to run those tests. UOA on a single engine is useless to draw any conclusion about the oil nor the engine type.
Also, a 5K OCI or 5K per year OCI is irrelevant as shown by how OLM is designed and implemented. Oil does not go bad in a year, it's how you drive the 5K miles and that is my point. Two people driving the same truck with the same oil can generate two completely different UOAs. Who's righ and who's wrong or is it the oil's fault or the engine or the location (Indiana?)
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
The lube does not know where it has been run. Whether the engine is on the dyno or mounted in the truck is irrelevant. The same tests can be run, it is a matter of cost. There is no other way to be accurate other than to run those tests. UOA on a single engine is useless to draw any conclusion about the oil nor the engine type.
Also, a 5K OCI or 5K per year OCI is irrelevant as shown by how OLM is designed and implemented. Oil does not go bad in a year, it's how you drive the 5K miles and that is my point. Two people driving the same truck with the same oil can generate two completely different UOAs. Who's righ and who's wrong or is it the oil's fault or the engine or the location (Indiana?)
I don't think we're looking for right and wrong here, or do I need to be an engineer to draw that conclusion?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
The lube does not know where it has been run. Whether the engine is on the dyno or mounted in the truck is irrelevant. The same tests can be run, it is a matter of cost. There is no other way to be accurate other than to run those tests. UOA on a single engine is useless to draw any conclusion about the oil nor the engine type.
Also, a 5K OCI or 5K per year OCI is irrelevant as shown by how OLM is designed and implemented. Oil does not go bad in a year, it's how you drive the 5K miles and that is my point. Two people driving the same truck with the same oil can generate two completely different UOAs. Who's righ and who's wrong or is it the oil's fault or the engine or the location (Indiana?)
I don't think we're looking for right and wrong here, or do I need to be an engineer to draw that conclusion?
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: JAG
dnewton, we agree on 5k miles being too short to show a definite from more expensive and suitable lubes.
My wording in my previous post was poor. On any one UOA sample, of course a proportionality constant exists to equate actual iron (or CU, PB, etc) wear to the corresponding value in the UOA. I meant to say that across different lubes (also across engines or same engine but different usage), the proportionality constant may vary considerably if the wear particle size distribution varies enough to cause the spectrometer to not ionize the same proportion of the sample. Said differently, one time the spectrometer may have detected 90% of wear element X and on next sample sent in it detected 75% due to a shift in particle size range.
Fortunately, if PQ Index test is also conducted (applies only to iron), we can get a much better idea on actual total amount of iron wear. http://www.wearcheck.com/literature/brochures/wc-pq-analysis.pdf
Just for educational fun, if the PQ Index test is also done, I'd be willing to throw in $20 to the OP if others throw in money as you proposed. If that's done, I recommend we focus on iron wear over other wear elements.
Yes, I'd agree; I think we're in a similar thought process here.
dnewton, we agree on 5k miles being too short to show a definite from more expensive and suitable lubes.
My wording in my previous post was poor. On any one UOA sample, of course a proportionality constant exists to equate actual iron (or CU, PB, etc) wear to the corresponding value in the UOA. I meant to say that across different lubes (also across engines or same engine but different usage), the proportionality constant may vary considerably if the wear particle size distribution varies enough to cause the spectrometer to not ionize the same proportion of the sample. Said differently, one time the spectrometer may have detected 90% of wear element X and on next sample sent in it detected 75% due to a shift in particle size range.
Fortunately, if PQ Index test is also conducted (applies only to iron), we can get a much better idea on actual total amount of iron wear. http://www.wearcheck.com/literature/brochures/wc-pq-analysis.pdf
Just for educational fun, if the PQ Index test is also done, I'd be willing to throw in $20 to the OP if others throw in money as you proposed. If that's done, I recommend we focus on iron wear over other wear elements.
Yes, I'd agree; I think we're in a similar thought process here.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
The lube does not know where it has been run. Whether the engine is on the dyno or mounted in the truck is irrelevant. The same tests can be run, it is a matter of cost. There is no other way to be accurate other than to run those tests. UOA on a single engine is useless to draw any conclusion about the oil nor the engine type.
Also, a 5K OCI or 5K per year OCI is irrelevant as shown by how OLM is designed and implemented. Oil does not go bad in a year, it's how you drive the 5K miles and that is my point. Two people driving the same truck with the same oil can generate two completely different UOAs. Who's righ and who's wrong or is it the oil's fault or the engine or the location (Indiana?)
Here, I would agree with you. Oil does not care what the calendar says. Ironically, the OEM and the lube makers do. I don't agree with their limits, but I don't get to set the OEM criteria either. Their MAIN concern is longevity through the warranty period. They don't have major concerns after that, and they don't care what we spend on costs during that warranty period. Interestingly, for example, Amsoil will warrant their fluids for up to 3x the OEM OCI, or one year, whichever comes first. So, if you drove only 7k miles in a year, and you didn't even hit one full OLM cycle, are you really getting "better" wear protection? Nah - UOAs show that's certianly not happening. Look at CdnMax and my UOAs; clearly no difference in wear in VERY similar circumstances. So, why dump oil way before it's time? Because of warranty. I don't agree with it, and I don't do it. I run two and three year OCIs on some of my equipment; all with Rotella dino oil.
But having the OP run his vehicle over a few 5k miles OCIs would be quite telling. It represents a (likely) consistent trial series. I suspect, given his stated use, that he has a fairly repeatable load factor from year to year. I would imagine he's much like me with his truck use; incidental during the year, and pulls heavy loads with an RV during summer. My pattern is very predictable as well; I may not travel the same road in CO each year, but I load my trailer and truck heavy every year, put 6-7k miles on it a year, and travel into the Rockies every year. It's about as consistent as one can get and not be "in the lab". Do I drive SR67 in CO every year? No. Do I load up my truck and hammer it ruthlessly each summer? Yes. And the long term average of my travels is consistent enough to show reasonable data averages over time. The same expectation can probably be said of Silver1, given what he's told us about his use.
So, in the end, I presume from your reluctance you're not interested in participating in our little test? Can't say I blame you; you'd probably be out your investment. My offer still stands. If Silver1 wants to do it, and we can find willing $$$ sources, I'll help put it together and set the test protocol. And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, as you may know, those only show how the lubes would perform in the lab. I am suggesting to see the REALITY of how the lubes would perform in the use that Silver1 sees.
The lube does not know where it has been run. Whether the engine is on the dyno or mounted in the truck is irrelevant. The same tests can be run, it is a matter of cost. There is no other way to be accurate other than to run those tests. UOA on a single engine is useless to draw any conclusion about the oil nor the engine type.
Also, a 5K OCI or 5K per year OCI is irrelevant as shown by how OLM is designed and implemented. Oil does not go bad in a year, it's how you drive the 5K miles and that is my point. Two people driving the same truck with the same oil can generate two completely different UOAs. Who's righ and who's wrong or is it the oil's fault or the engine or the location (Indiana?)
Here, I would agree with you. Oil does not care what the calendar says. Ironically, the OEM and the lube makers do. I don't agree with their limits, but I don't get to set the OEM criteria either. Their MAIN concern is longevity through the warranty period. They don't have major concerns after that, and they don't care what we spend on costs during that warranty period. Interestingly, for example, Amsoil will warrant their fluids for up to 3x the OEM OCI, or one year, whichever comes first. So, if you drove only 7k miles in a year, and you didn't even hit one full OLM cycle, are you really getting "better" wear protection? Nah - UOAs show that's certianly not happening. Look at CdnMax and my UOAs; clearly no difference in wear in VERY similar circumstances. So, why dump oil way before it's time? Because of warranty. I don't agree with it, and I don't do it. I run two and three year OCIs on some of my equipment; all with Rotella dino oil.
But having the OP run his vehicle over a few 5k miles OCIs would be quite telling. It represents a (likely) consistent trial series. I suspect, given his stated use, that he has a fairly repeatable load factor from year to year. I would imagine he's much like me with his truck use; incidental during the year, and pulls heavy loads with an RV during summer. My pattern is very predictable as well; I may not travel the same road in CO each year, but I load my trailer and truck heavy every year, put 6-7k miles on it a year, and travel into the Rockies every year. It's about as consistent as one can get and not be "in the lab". Do I drive SR67 in CO every year? No. Do I load up my truck and hammer it ruthlessly each summer? Yes. And the long term average of my travels is consistent enough to show reasonable data averages over time. The same expectation can probably be said of Silver1, given what he's told us about his use.
So, in the end, I presume from your reluctance you're not interested in participating in our little test? Can't say I blame you; you'd probably be out your investment. My offer still stands. If Silver1 wants to do it, and we can find willing $$$ sources, I'll help put it together and set the test protocol. And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
It is invalid from the get go. If it was legit the oil companies and car manufacturers would have use it in a heart beat. But they don't because their engineers said so. A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less. The rest are just assumptions based on internet rumors and hearsay.
Ford, GM, Nissan, VW, and Toyota have proving grounds here in the Phoenix metro. My neighbors are test engineers for these companies. They laughed their heads off when I mentioned your proposed experiment. They considered your experiment a typical beer run.
And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
It is invalid from the get go. If it was legit the oil companies and car manufacturers would have use it in a heart beat. But they don't because their engineers said so. A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less. The rest are just assumptions based on internet rumors and hearsay.
Ford, GM, Nissan, VW, and Toyota have proving grounds here in the Phoenix metro. My neighbors are test engineers for these companies. They laughed their heads off when I mentioned your proposed experiment. They considered your experiment a typical beer run.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
It is invalid from the get go. If it was legit the oil companies and car manufacturers would have use it in a heart beat. But they don't because their engineers said so. A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less. The rest are just assumptions based on internet rumors and hearsay.
Ford, GM, Nissan, VW, and Toyota have proving grounds here in the Phoenix metro. My neighbors are test engineers for these companies. They laughed their heads off when I mentioned your proposed experiment. They considered your experiment a typical beer run.
Let's review here: the OP wanted to know if T6 would be "better" for his personal situation. I've suggested a specific trial series to run both dino and syn in his truck, in his use pattern, for a few OCIs/UOAs. How is that not valid? You said it yourself:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less.
I'm only proposing one truck, one use, one driver, one series of UOAs. How's that not valid for him in this situation? While I completely disagree with your mantra, I'm actually willing to look at this from your unique perspective. The very one you propose; one truck; one series of sequential UOAs. Isn't that exactly what you state is valid?
Like I thought - you're unwilling to participate, but willing to degrade and deride. Thanks for that. But by all means, continue to contribute to the thread. You know, like your helpful post about Helix being better than diesel oils five generations back and such. 'Cause that wasn't internet rhetoric or marketing hype ...
I'll be in your area this fall for a visit with family. Why not get together and you can introduce me to all the engineer friends from Ford, GM, Nissan, VW and Toyota. (Must be a very dense "engineer:avg joe" ratio where you live.) Then they can explain how only their portion of the universe is valid, when the rest of the world embraces comparitive UOA technology.
If your position is that UOAs are only worthwhile to one single user and vehcile, then why do you personally post your UOAs here? Frankly, if your position were true, none of us would have any reason to ever post a UOA, would we? If no one else could learn from them, why post to share? Why would I care about your vehicles, if the expereience didn't have relevance to mine? In fact, if your position were true, then there would never be any ability to compare/contrast any product to it's siblings or competitors ...
* We wouldn't have statistical analysis for market trends or product performance of any kind.
* We wouldn't be able to use statistical analysis in the medical field, because we would only be able to track one single pill in one single human body, and never make valid conclusions as to medicine effectivness across gender or age based target groups; mass double-blind trials would be worthless. We'd never experiment with new drugs, because each trial would only be "valid" to the individual, and not the trial series.
* We'd not find usefulness in having velocity and energy performance for bullets and powders, because you'd limit us to only one box of ammo and one gun, therefore velocity and accuracy charts would be invalid, and those of us that handload (using text books from YEARS of data gathering from the SAAMI industry leaders) would be foolish.
* We'd never be able to compare/contrast vehicle performance such as acceleration or fuel mileage, because only individual circumstances would be valid in your world. I would not be able to compare/contrast a Honda Accord to a Toyota Camry to a Ford Fusion, because in your world, they only perform as individuals, and not as a collective.
* We'd never make any product here in the US, because we'd not be able to compare/contrast the ability of any machining or stamping operation to make parts to print, and see when die sets or tooling performs "better" than another option, so we could choose vendors for our cutting heads and punches, etc.
* We'd be silly to review weather data, predicting long term trends and variances. We'd not be able to ascertain the likelyhood of storms for any particular region, or forecast daily weather, because in your world, each day is unique only to itself and could never be used to develop average temperatures for cities, or rainfall for counties. In fact, your buddies from Ford, GM, Nissan, VW and Toyota would have no reason to be in Phoenix, because there is no reason in your world to believe that southern AZ would be any hotter or colder than San Francisco CA, or Albany NY, or any other place on the planet. There would be no reason for Ford or GM to venture outside of Detroit, because statistically, in your scenrio, there is no way to predict how one city could ever be warmer than another city, and therefore spending millions of dollars to build/use a test track in the heat of AZ would be meaningless.
* No farmer would be able to predict milk production for his herd, nor bushels/acre for his crops, based upon average performance data from other farmers using similar support products such as seed, fertilizers, herbicides, etc. He'd have to measure each cow, each acre, every day, but he could not use that data to predict costs or profit potential.
* No insurance industry giant would be able to use statistics for mass groupings, and therefore predict your personal insurance variables, based upon age, gender and location, for things like health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, etc. In your world, it would be impossible to quantify the risk of a 58 year old grandmother driving a Taurus wagon versus a 17 year old boy driving a hopped-up Mustang, because in your view, there is no ability to look past the individual and see into similar and diverse product or process groupings, so they both would pay the same insurance rates.
Yeah - UOAs are worthless to everyone but the individual.
Sir, you are confusing micro and macro statistical modeling. When you see your engineering buddies the next time, why don't you have them explain those to you. And if they cannot, then perhaps they're not the source of info you should be relying on.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
It is invalid from the get go. If it was legit the oil companies and car manufacturers would have use it in a heart beat. But they don't because their engineers said so. A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less. The rest are just assumptions based on internet rumors and hearsay.
Ford, GM, Nissan, VW, and Toyota have proving grounds here in the Phoenix metro. My neighbors are test engineers for these companies. They laughed their heads off when I mentioned your proposed experiment. They considered your experiment a typical beer run.
Let's review here: the OP wanted to know if T6 would be "better" for his personal situation. I've suggested a specific trial series to run both dino and syn in his truck, in his use pattern, for a few OCIs/UOAs. How is that not valid? You said it yourself:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less.
I'm only proposing one truck, one use, one driver, one series of UOAs. How's that not valid for him in this situation? While I completely disagree with your mantra, I'm actually willing to look at this from your unique perspective. The very one you propose; one truck; one series of sequential UOAs. Isn't that exactly what you state is valid?
Like I thought - you're unwilling to participate, but willing to degrade and deride. Thanks for that. But by all means, continue to contribute to the thread. You know, like your helpful post about Helix being better than diesel oils five generations back and such. 'Cause that wasn't internet rhetoric or marketing hype ...
I'll be in your area this fall for a visit with family. Why not get together and you can introduce me to all the engineer friends from Ford, GM, Nissan, VW and Toyota. (Must be a very dense "engineer:avg joe" ratio where you live.) Then they can explain how only their portion of the universe is valid, when the rest of the world embraces comparitive UOA technology.
If your position is that UOAs are only worthwhile to one single user and vehcile, then why do you personally post your UOAs here? Frankly, if your position were true, none of us would have any reason to ever post a UOA, would we? If no one else could learn from them, why post to share? Why would I care about your vehicles, if the expereience didn't have relevance to mine? In fact, if your position were true, then there would never be any ability to compare/contrast any product to it's siblings or competitors ...
* We wouldn't have statistical analysis for market trends or product performance of any kind.
* We wouldn't be able to use statistical analysis in the medical field, because we would only be able to track one single pill in one single human body, and never make valid conclusions as to medicine effectivness across gender or age based target groups; mass double-blind trials would be worthless. We'd never experiment with new drugs, because each trial would only be "valid" to the individual, and not the trial series.
* We'd not find usefulness in having velocity and energy performance for bullets and powders, because you'd limit us to only one box of ammo and one gun, therefore velocity and accuracy charts would be invalid, and those of us that handload (using text books from YEARS of data gathering from the SAAMI industry leaders) would be foolish.
* We'd never be able to compare/contrast vehicle performance such as acceleration or fuel mileage, because only individual circumstances would be valid in your world. I would not be able to compare/contrast a Honda Accord to a Toyota Camry to a Ford Fusion, because in your world, they only perform as individuals, and not as a collective.
* We'd never make any product here in the US, because we'd not be able to compare/contrast the ability of any machining or stamping operation to make parts to print, and see when die sets or tooling performs "better" than another option, so we could choose vendors for our cutting heads and punches, etc.
* We'd be silly to review weather data, predicting long term trends and variances. We'd not be able to ascertain the likelyhood of storms for any particular region, or forecast daily weather, because in your world, each day is unique only to itself and could never be used to develop average temperatures for cities, or rainfall for counties. In fact, your buddies from Ford, GM, Nissan, VW and Toyota would have no reason to be in Phoenix, because there is no reason in your world to believe that southern AZ would be any hotter or colder than San Francisco CA, or Albany NY, or any other place on the planet. There would be no reason for Ford or GM to venture outside of Detroit, because statistically, in your scenrio, there is no way to predict how one city could ever be warmer than another city, and therefore spending millions of dollars to build/use a test track in the heat of AZ would be meaningless.
* No farmer would be able to predict milk production for his herd, nor bushels/acre for his crops, based upon average performance data from other farmers using similar support products such as seed, fertilizers, herbicides, etc. He'd have to measure each cow, each acre, every day, but he could not use that data to predict costs or profit potential.
* No insurance industry giant would be able to use statistics for mass groupings, and therefore predict your personal insurance variables, based upon age, gender and location, for things like health insurance, car insurance, home insurance, etc. In your world, it would be impossible to quantify the risk of a 58 year old grandmother driving a Taurus wagon versus a 17 year old boy driving a hopped-up Mustang, because in your view, there is no ability to look past the individual and see into similar and diverse product or process groupings, so they both would pay the same insurance rates.
Yeah - UOAs are worthless to everyone but the individual.
Sir, you are confusing micro and macro statistical modeling. When you see your engineering buddies the next time, why don't you have them explain those to you. And if they cannot, then perhaps they're not the source of info you should be relying on.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
It is invalid from the get go. If it was legit the oil companies and car manufacturers would have use it in a heart beat. But they don't because their engineers said so. A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less. The rest are just assumptions based on internet rumors and hearsay.
Ford, GM, Nissan, VW, and Toyota have proving grounds here in the Phoenix metro. My neighbors are test engineers for these companies. They laughed their heads off when I mentioned your proposed experiment. They considered your experiment a typical beer run.
I thought engineers were unable to laugh?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And when we're done, will you tell us it's not a "lab test" and therefore invalid?
It is invalid from the get go. If it was legit the oil companies and car manufacturers would have use it in a heart beat. But they don't because their engineers said so. A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less. The rest are just assumptions based on internet rumors and hearsay.
Ford, GM, Nissan, VW, and Toyota have proving grounds here in the Phoenix metro. My neighbors are test engineers for these companies. They laughed their heads off when I mentioned your proposed experiment. They considered your experiment a typical beer run.
I thought engineers were unable to laugh?
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: hatt
How many decades is it going to take to see any potential benefit with a 7.3 being driven 5K a year?
Who cares? We are talking about 5K oil change interval not 5K per year.
The person driving 5K a year cares. You realize someone driving 5K a year has different wants and needs than the guy driving 50K/yr. Spending 2-3x in hopes of a few more miles many many years down the road doesn't make a lot of sense. The engine wearing out/failing because of dino/syn oil choice is likely dead last on the list of things that could possibly go wrong with that vehicle.
Originally Posted By: hatt
How many decades is it going to take to see any potential benefit with a 7.3 being driven 5K a year?
Who cares? We are talking about 5K oil change interval not 5K per year.
The person driving 5K a year cares. You realize someone driving 5K a year has different wants and needs than the guy driving 50K/yr. Spending 2-3x in hopes of a few more miles many many years down the road doesn't make a lot of sense. The engine wearing out/failing because of dino/syn oil choice is likely dead last on the list of things that could possibly go wrong with that vehicle.
- Status
