Amsoil AME 15W40, 25K, 04 Duramax

[TXHunter]

Went ahead and changed the oil & filter at 25K, even though things still look pretty good. The universal averages from Blackstone are 6600 for this motor, so I feel pretty good with the mileage. Probably will not be extending any further at this point.

Make/Model: Isuzu 6.6 Duramax LLY
Vehicle: 2004 Chevy 2500HD

Code:


OIL AME 15w40 AME 15w40 AME 15w40 AME 15w40 AME 15w40 VPBE 5w40 VPBE 5w40

MILES IN USE 24,757 21,779 19,779 12,006 9,006 8,038 6,000

MILES ON UNIT 147,981 145,003 123,224 115,451 112,451 102,862 100,824

SAMPLE TAKEN 8/9/13 6/13/13 6/13/12 3/1/12 1/2/12 9/6/11 8/26/11

MAKE UP OIL 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0



ALUMINUM 3 2 2 2 2 2 1

CHROMIUM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

IRON 17 14 16 11 9 7 6

COPPER 6 3 4 2 2 3 2

LEAD 3 2 2 1 2 6 1

TIN 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

MOLYBDENUM 2 0 6 7 8 42 43

NICKEL 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

MANGANESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SILVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TITANIUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

POTASSIUM 0 4 4 0 0 0 0

BORON 5 2 10 9 10 34 40

SILICON 8 9 8 7 7 8 7

SODIUM 6 5 6 5 5 6 7

CALCIUM 4140 3888 3604 3153 3334 820 849

MAGNESIUM 33 31 197 213 234 1190 1319

PHOSPHORUS 1401 1252 1262 1132 1241 1071 1191

ZINC 1474 1500 1323 1226 1369 1300 1417

BARIUM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CADMIUM 0

VANADIUM 0

ANTIMONY 0

LITHIUM 0



SUS @ 210F 73.2 74.6 73.0 71.3 71.7 71.9

Visc @ 100C 13.8 14.6 14.14 13.73 13.29 13.40 13.44

Flashpoint 430 430 425 435 400 420

Fuel %
Antifreeze % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Water % 0.0
Insolubles % 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

TBN 4.5 7.0 5.8 8.7

Soot
Oxidation 53

Nitration 10


Oil Analysis Vendor Comments:
There's really nothing to complain about here. This is a fantastic sample. You're getting average metal readings even though you're running the oil about four times as long. That's impressive. If we had to complain about one thing, it'd be copper, since it increased just a little -- and has been increasing for the past few samples. It's still well below average, but we'll watch it. It could show some brass/bronze wear. Really, though, if our only complaint is a 2 ppm increase in copper, then you know you've got it good. The TBN is still good. Bring on 26,000 to 27,000 miles.

22K sample was done through Oil Analyzers Inc, everything else is through Blackstone.

 

[Donald]

Looks good. Did OAI (Polaris) make any comments about the oxidation at 53?

If I were you would get the oxidation with every UOA. The TBN tells you about the additives. You need to know about the base oil also. Yes you have the viscosity, but more is needed.

With diesel you toss the oil based upon iron & soot (usually).

 

[chubbs1]

Pretty darn stout oil and great UOA. I saw a thread that was pertaining to the cost/benefit analysis of purchasing a more expensive oil like Amsoil. I say in your case you get every penny worth and I personally would not feel comfortable doing OCI's like yours on the most popular HD oils (Rotella, Delvac or DELO) so you are getting your money's IMO.

 

[dnewton3]

Outstanding results and good use of the fluid.

However ... (you just knew it was coming) ...

Oil was dumped too soon.
Wear rates are admirably low
Wear totals are no where near condemnation
Insolubles are low
Contaminanats are low
FP is fine
Vis is fine
TBN strong (TAN inferred as OK because the TBN is so high)

So why limit the oil at 25k?

I just don't understand the mentality of some folks ... They pay for premium fluid, pay for a UOA, and then despite EVERY SINGLE INDICATOR SHOWING FURTHER EXTENSION IS WARRANTED, they artificially limit the lube.


As for the ROI, until they were to run out a decent quality dino fluid, there is no basis of where the "breakpoint" would be for the more expensive fluid. Genearlly, dino oils can easily go 10-12k miles in a Dmax. While 25k miles is a fairly strong extension, it's not really any cheaper because it likely cost at least 2x more money; hence the ROI is barely at break-even. However, extending the AME would likely tip it into positive ROI. BUT, when you add in the cost of the UOA you have to push it out more for the break even.


I realize many of these UOAs you post are not always your personal vehicles, as you do maintain stuff for other folks, so I'm not picking on you personally. Although even if this is your truck, it would not change my comments. I just don't understand the mindset of paying for premium products (AME), paying for sound advice (lots of UOAs), seeing every indicator that extension is warranted and sound, and then saying "ahwwwww .... screw it, I'm gonna change oil anyway ...."


Excellent showing for AME; Amsoil at its finest! (And you folks thought I hated synthetics

)

Total waste of a great fluid, and information, if 25k miles is the intended hard stop.



.

 

[sdude2k2000]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Outstanding results and good use of the fluid.

However ... (you just knew it was coming) ...

Oil was dumped too soon.
Wear rates are admirably low
Wear totals are no where near condemnation
Insolubles are low
Contaminanats are low
FP is fine
Vis is fine
TBN strong (TAN inferred as OK because the TBN is so high)

So why limit the oil at 25k?

I just don't understand the mentality of some folks ... They pay for premium fluid, pay for a UOA, and then despite EVERY SINGLE INDICATOR SHOWING FURTHER EXTENSION IS WARRANTED, they artificially limit the lube.


As for the ROI, until they were to run out a decent quality dino fluid, there is no basis of where the "breakpoint" would be for the more expensive fluid. Genearlly, dino oils can easily go 10-12k miles in a Dmax. While 25k miles is a fairly strong extension, it's not really any cheaper because it likely cost at least 2x more money; hence the ROI is barely at break-even. However, extending the AME would likely tip it into positive ROI. BUT, when you add in the cost of the UOA you have to push it out more for the break even.


I realize many of these UOAs you post are not always your personal vehicles, as you do maintain stuff for other folks, so I'm not picking on you personally. Although even if this is your truck, it would not change my comments. I just don't understand the mindset of paying for premium products (AME), paying for sound advice (lots of UOAs), seeing every indicator that extension is warranted and sound, and then saying "ahwwwww .... screw it, I'm gonna change oil anyway ...."


Excellent showing for AME; Amsoil at its finest! (And you folks thought I hated synthetics

)

Total waste of a great fluid, and information, if 25k miles is the intended hard stop.



.


He has been slowly increasing his UOA since he started with the Amsoil. Most people out there wouldn't run an oil 25k, but this OP has... and even though he has stated he probably won't run past 25k, we all know how sometimes plans change and we push the envelope a bit more. Your opinions on things are well documented, so if anyone is ever curious about how YOU of all people feel, I'm sure they'll find around 4874 comments regarding it (i.e. Synthetics are a waste unless you fully deplete their resources). If this individual is content with a 25k OCI - let them be! 99% of people in the US would never dream of running a 25k OCI (unless they just never change their oil)... let alone document for others. This individual has, and I commend them for it.

To the OP - THANK YOU for daring to run a 25k OCI and documenting your results for us.

 

[Clevy]

Well definitely proves some Amsoil fluids can go the advertised distance.

 

[dnewton3]

It's not "daring" to run a premium synthetic that has a warranty statement for OCIs including up to 3x the OEM OCI, which in this case, depending upon the IOLM, could be as much as 30k "ish" miles. And he wouldn't even need a UOA for that, either. Additionally, Amsoil will warrant the fluid and it's effects past that 3x point, with UOA validation of continued servicability.

Here is what they have to say about the OCI:
SERVICE LIFE
AMSOIL Synthetic Heavy Duty Diesel and Marine Motor Oil is recommended for extended drain intervals in unmodified, mechanically-sound vehicles or equipment as follows:

Diesel Engine Service
Three times (3X) OEM* recommendation, not to exceed 50,000 miles/600 hours or one year, whichever comes first. Drain intervals may be extended further with oil analysis.


Here is what they have to say about the ROI:
Extends Drain Intervals
AMSOIL Synthetic Heavy Duty Diesel and Marine Motor Oil can extend drain intervals far beyond those recommended for conventional petroleum oils. Its unique synthetic formulation and long-drain additive chemistry deliver maximum engine protection, cleanliness and performance over extended drain intervals, reducing vehicle maintenance and waste oil disposal costs.



In fact, he COULD go up to 50k miles on AME, if the OLM would predict as such in the 3x factor in a year. And not even need the UOAs. UOAs are only required past the 50k miles or 3x factor. They are clearly indicating that not only is OCI extension possible, but actually beneficial in terms of ROI.

Or, what if the OLM indicated OCIs at 6k miles each; that would put the "3x" factor at only 18k miles. So, in that case, the 25k miles would be too long, unless there was UOA validation.

So, to have the UOAs with these results, and use the AME, and still use some arbitrary mileage is silly. Odometers are for counting miles and nothing more. Using the odometer to select the OCI is okay in lieu of UOAs, but when you have UOAs, and a premium fluid with a strong 3x factor, why in the world does one pick some OCI value out of the thin blue air?

Let's look at the AME OCI strategy the owner uses:
9k miles; if it looks good, I'll extend (and he does)
12k miles; if it looks good, I'll extend (and he does)
20k miles; if it looks good, I'll extend (and he does)
22k miles; if it looks good, I'll extend (and he does)
25k miles; if it looks good, I'll stop.

Why stop at 25k miles, even though it still looks good? Actually, it looks GREAT! Why the shift in OCI plan? Why the cold-feet at 25k miles? Just what happened to suddenly say that 24,999 miles is perfectly acceptable, but by gosh at 25,000.1 miles the oil is spent and worthless? So, other than a gut-feeling, just what criteria in this series of UOAs points toward condemnation?

Here's a review of what DOES NOT indicate an OCI is due:
Wear rates
Wear totals
Vis
FP
TBN
Contamination of any kind (soot/insols, fuel, water, coolant, silica ...)
Fluid warranty

I would presume, that if the UOA indicated an OCI was due BEFORE the 25k miles, he would do so. Would it not be foolish to continue an OCI if the UOA indicated problems were afoot? I'd like to think he's smart enough to OCI if the UOA showed horrid wear, or heavy contamination, etc. So if he's smart enough to use the UOA to OCI in a short manner in the face of problems, how it is not a "waste" to ignore the UOA and not extend, when all factors are totally in control? In effect, his one-way trust of UOAs is short-sighted. He'd trust a UOA to indicate a problem, and would likely OCI early if the UOA showed issues, but he won't trust a UOA to show all is well, and would rather OCI by some arbitrary emotional limit? He pays for premiums tools (synthetics and UOAs) and then promptly ignores the capability and information, and sets a whimsical OCI limit. The mentality here is thus:
I trust a UOA to tell me if anything is wrong, and would take immediate action. And I trust the UOA to tell me everything is fine, but ONLY up to 24,999 miles. The science I trust under 25k miles is totally believeable, but once it crosses that magical arbitrary mark, it's no longer valid and my innate ability to "feel" the OCI is best.

 

[TXHunter]

"It's not "daring" to run a premium synthetic that has a warranty statement for OCIs including up to 3x the OEM OCI, which in this case, depending upon the IOLM, could be as much as 30k "ish" miles. And he wouldn't even need a UOA for that, either.."

You put too much stock in UOA's. Have you not seen the post I had about the motor that went out, even though the UOA indicated to change the filter and run it another 3500 miles? Running that kind of mileage with no UOA simply because a bottle claimed it's possible isn't very wise. If you want to take everything printed on a label at face value, good luck with that.

25K for me provides plenty of ROI, I've gotten everything and more that I expected to get out of the oil by this part. Why push it until the point I get unnecessary wear to find the "magic OCI"?

Relax, you get way too passionate over dollars of oil. I would gladly put my receipts and OCI interval against your dino fluid in your truck and see who has the better ROI over the next 25K miles.

Assume you can get 12.5K intervals out of the dino fluid of your choice, my math shows that my OCI still beats it in cost. I'm looking at list prices only, sure you can catch a sale and I can leverage my amsoil discount but this gives apples to apples.

Synthetic Oil Change (Based on amsoil.com published pricing)
10 Qts AME = $92.50 ($9.25/QT)
1 Ea Oil Filter = $18.85
1 UOA = $25
1 OCI Labor = $15 (whether you do it or someone else, your time is worth money).
Total = $151.35 ($6.05 every 1k)

Dino Oil Change (Based on oreillyauto.com published pricing)
20 Qts Rotella/Delo/etc = $95.80 ($4.79/QT)
2 Wix Oil Filters = $26.98 ($13.49 ea)
2 UOA's = $50
2 OCI Labor = $30
Total = $202.78 ($8.11 every 1k)

I fail to see the HUGE concern about changing my oil at 25K. I'd rather extend to this level and change the oil with wear rates looking great than push it a bit further and risk the chance that I damage an engine I can't exactly afford to replace.

Hit me up if you want to do something in our DMAX engines to compare our ROI rates. I'd certainly be up for the challenge.

 

[dnewton3]

Your "apples to apples" really isn't ...
You'll never find Amsoil prices as good as mass market sales. They just cannot compete on that level. And it's not hard at all to find dino oil on sale. It's post here all the time.

Your math is way off, but only because you're really high on your prices. Anyone can get HDEO (a qualified CJ-4 from many brand) for $2.50/qrt, not the $4.79 you state, and not even try hard. That greatly changes your overall cost structure in the conventional example. Just late last fall, I saw Peak HDEO for $8/gallon, and no rebate was even needed. Mobil Delvac had a big sale this spring; was $7/gallon after $5 rebate. Anyone who pays more than $12/gallon isn't even trying to save money.

Further, most of us BITOGers DIY our OCIs; there is no cost for labor. You artifically elevate the dino OCI, because you get to "double" the labor charge, of which none of us lay out cash for. Nice try - but not realistic. Leave out these "costs" because they are ficticious to the average BITOGer.

Additionally, why would I UOA twice? If you're going to run 25k miles on AME, and I OCI at 12.5k miles on Peak, then I'm well within the IOLM limits, and therefore I'd never need to UOA at all. Again - you double up the cost of the dino to gain an unfair advantage. Or, to look at it from another perspective, if I UOA every 12.5k miles, then you can too, which makes the costs moot, because they are totally equal. You have no obligation to UOA out to 3x the OCI with AME, but then I have zero obligation to UOA ever, if I follow the OLM. So, if we "want" to UOA, then the fair thing would be to do them at the same intervals, hence the costs to both approaches is totally moot; it's a wash. And therefore your application of the dino OCI plan having twice the UOA cost is, frankly, disingenuous. These "costs" should either be included equally in both plans, or left of both plans. But either way, they negate any differential.

Here's how MY Dmax OCIs cost out in real life:
10 qrts oil @ $2.00/qrt = $20 (that is a REAL WORLD, I paid CASH for it at the counter price)
Any decent brand filter = $8
So I spend $28 per OCI and not a penny more.
However, what I have been doing recently is NOT OCI'ing at all, and ONLY UOAs. I have a Fumoto valve and take live samples. I am heading into my 3rd year of OCI in my Dmax. But, my cost is still about the same. If I choose Blackstone, it's a bit more; if OAI, a bit less. Call it a even wash for the sake of conversation. IOW - I can either OCI, or UOA, for about the same cost, give or take a bit. I choose to UOA and not OCI. In your example, you'd have me doing both, but that heaps cost into the plan artifically; I don't need to do both.




As for the failed engine with UOA, it certainly is possible. But it's not the norm. UOAs are tools, and to be used properly, one needs to understand their benefits as well as their limitations. I have no idea how the engine failed, not do I know of the event you refer to. Therefore, I really have no ability to comment on the respective viability of the UOA to the failure. A catastrophic immediate failure would likely not be caught by a UOA, but then again, it's not like the alternative of doing nothing would have saved any engine from this anyway ...
In your example of a failed engine, what was done in regard to warranty claims, if any? If you used Amsoil lubes, and the engine had a lube-relatedfailure within the warranty period, then I believe Amsoil would cover it. So, yes, I see very little risk in running a lube out such as AME to 3x the OLM OCI. No lube will ever stop a con-rod from separating, or a piston from cracking, etc. And I don't think running a lube out to it's fully warranty period is a risk any greater than other shorter alternatives. Immediate catastrophic failures are just that; there is no likely prediction whatsoever. However, wear-reated failures are easily caught, if you use multiple tools, and know the tell-tale signs. Those who dabble in UOAs, and think they understand everything about an engine, are fooling themselves.



Further, UOA extensions are really best done with not just UOAs, but also PCs, visual inspections, physical testing (commpression checks, etc). To use only one tool, when many are available, it not maximizing the full info spectrum.



We have different approaches:
I use the UOA (along with other tools) to track the predictive maintenance plan in my methodology.
You use the UOA as a toy, and will trust it only to a point, and then your gut takes over and ignores the science.

I will glady run my true-cost OCI plan against yours. I suspect my plan will succeed to a point where you'll get fearful and not be able to match the ROI differential. But that's because I don't run to an arbitrary OCI limit; I use condemation limits and run until the lube is well used (but not unsafe). I'll run until the contamination gets too high; it's typically the first thing to breach a threshold. Wear rates are so low in Dmax engines that we'd proably NEVER get to any practical condemnation point, in several years.

 

[jayg]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Pretty darn stout oil and great UOA. I saw a thread that was pertaining to the cost/benefit analysis of purchasing a more expensive oil like Amsoil. I say in your case you get every penny worth and I personally would not feel comfortable doing OCI's like yours on the most popular HD oils (Rotella, Delvac or DELO) so you are getting your money's IMO.


Exactly. You did synthetic right.

 

[TXHunter]

Whether you are doing the OCI or paying a shop, there is a value to labor that you can't ignore. My time isn't free and I'm sure yours isn't either. Doubling it for 'dino' oil must be considered.

With regards to the OAI, I disagree with you there. You either need to sample the dino more frequently because it isn't designed to run the extended interval twice, or the sample costs would disappear from both. Why would I need to test an oil designed for extended use as base intervals? I've seen it run safely to 25K. Universal averages from Blackstone is 6.6K miles, I'd be hesitant to run a typical oil beyond that and/or OLM without testing.

I doubt we will end up agreeing in the UOA frequency, or labor costs, so doing an ROI we both agree on isn't likely. With my plan I feel I've got the better ROI, and you feel confident in the ROI of yours. I can live with that.

Maybe we see who gets the most life/mileage before engine replacement?

 

[dnewton3]

What the product is capable of, and what you decide to limit it to, are two totally different things. In your application AME can go way further, based on the short series of what you've run. You are not comfortable with that; fine by all of us as it is your rig and not ours. Given your series of UOAs, the Amsoil could easily be extended. That you choose not to do so, does not negate that fact.

Therefore, you are correct; we will have to agree to disagree.

And I thank you for the civil disagreement; always nice to be able to debate and discuss, but not have things turn personal. You are to be commended for being a gentleman.

One thing we would likely agree on; the Dmax is about as easy on oil as any rig out there, and it's likely that neither of us would be able to drive our rigs to death, because they just don't seem to have any lube-related weaknesses. I have yet to find a single example of a Dmax specifically failing due to what brand/grade/OCI was applied. (Excluding true neglect, of course).