Fresh Oil = Stripped AW ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's interesting feedback Ed. Thanks for buying and analyzing the study.

Did you also read dnewtons UOA study? The only flaw that comes to mind is UOA as a proxy for wear rather than teardowns.
 
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Originally Posted By: TFB1
So I suppose we need to start conditioning our fresh oil in the beater for 500-1000 miles before dumping it into our good vehicles??????????


crazy2.gif



Makes as much sense as this whole [censored] thread...

99.99% of the vehicle owning populous get along just fine thinking they are doing the right thing by changing oil and decreasing wear by doing so... Only on BITOG do the annies wring their hands over something so minuscule...
 
No, it's taking actual data from an actual test, then misapplying the outcomes to a logical falacy...

Used oil did better in the bench test on friction and wear doesn't mean fill your engine with used oil...because as the like of Molakule keep harping...the lubricant is a complete package.

If manufacturers started making lubes with multiple anion species (like hundreds, that are formed in a running engine), there might not be the "blip" come oil change...and we couldn't afford the oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Yes, there is a metal cation ion that is a part of the detergent molecule. The metal is usually Ca, Mg, or Na. HOWEVER, those metals do NOT do the cleaning. It's the anion that does the "cleaning".

I'm aware of that.

Originally Posted By: Phishin
Detergents in oil aren't like Dawn Dish Soap and "dissolve" dirt.

That was what I was hinting at. Detergents in oils aren't like standard detergents that actually break down oils and greases, which isn't exactly what one would be wanting in an oil in the first place.

Originally Posted By: Phishin
I'd be willing to bet if someone was crazy enough to change their oil every 500 miles in a new car (so deposits, varnish, and wear metals are at a steady state), after the break-in miles, you wouldn't see all these "spikes" anymore

I don't think the "spike" would dissipate within 500 miles in the first place.

Originally Posted By: edhackett
There are some major anomalies in the oil data that are ignored or just given a hand wave that raise several red flags for me. That's best left to another post, likely to be unmade.

Don't hold out on us now that you've got us interested!
 
The "blip" we see in UOAs can not be used to demonstrate this supposed phenomenon either. Carryover is an uncontrolled variable.

Let's take an engine with a 5 qt. sump with 10% carryover that produces a constant 10ppm Fe per 1000 miles, and a 10K OCI as an example. Draw a sample at 1 mile and at every 1K thereafter. This is what the data would look like:

1 mile 11 ppm = 11ppm/mile
1K miles 21 ppm = 0.0210 ppm/mile
2K miles 31 ppm = 0.0155 ppm/mile
3K miles 41ppm = 0.0137 ppm/mile
4K miles 51 ppm = 0.0128 ppm/mile
5K miles 61 ppm = 0.0122 ppm/mile
6K miles 71 ppm = 0.0118 ppm/mile
7K miles 81 ppm = 0.0116 ppm/mile
8K miles 91 ppm = 0.0114 ppm/mile
9K miles 101 ppm = 0.0112 ppm/mile
10K miles 111 ppm = 0.0111 ppm/mile

There you go, the blip seen in UOAs explained by simple math, no extra wear required.

Another thing to take into consideration when viewing the SAE paper is that as a bench test, the fresh oil never sees combustion products. In your car the oil is diluted typically 10-15% with used oil and sees fresh combustion products as soon as you turn the key.

I really wish the authors of the SAE paper had run aged motor oil on a new cam/lifter as a control. All I will say about that paper in general is that if I had submitted that paper to my boss with the rather incomplete methodology section, integrity of the aged oil in question, and figures that did not match the text, my behind wouldn't likely ever grow back.
grin.gif


That said, the paper does provide useful data on the differences in anti wear between new and aged oil, and that 15K oil is still capable of maintaining an effective anti wear layer. The oils themselves were not capable of 15K. All were showing signs of distress (TBN/TAN) at 10K and by 15K one of these 5W20s was a XW-50 and the other two XW-40s, and TAN was 2-3X TBN. Sludge City!

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
So using this theory, do AW additives just not "stick" until oil gets older? LOL!!!! What kinda myth is this line of garbage?


Originally Posted By: Phishin
But I just don't think this phenomenon is attributed to the fact that AW additives are being washed off with fresh oil. Lunacy, if you ask me.


Originally Posted By: Phishin
But you gotta have an inquiring mind, have a thirst for the truth, and be humble enough to admit that you don't know everything.


Humble, right?
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Growing up I heard the same thing, and followed it until I came to Bitog.

This is interesting, according to "seating" then frequently changing brands of oil is not a good idea at all. It contradicts information given here on the board that changing oil brands is fine, the truth is it "might" not be so fine? Interesting thread, it's a real eye opener.

I don't believe it is evidence against changing brands of oil. What it does is explain temporary abnormalities in a UOA after a brand switch.


Sometimes there is an "unexplained" consumption too.
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Another thing to take into consideration when viewing the SAE paper is that as a bench test, the fresh oil never sees combustion products. In your car the oil is diluted typically 10-15% with used oil and sees fresh combustion products as soon as you turn the key.

Was there not some study done with Ford engines, too, at some point? I'm not positive on that, though. Dave Newton very well might know, with the reading he went through on the topic.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Another thing to take into consideration when viewing the SAE paper is that as a bench test, the fresh oil never sees combustion products. In your car the oil is diluted typically 10-15% with used oil and sees fresh combustion products as soon as you turn the key.

Was there not some study done with Ford engines, too, at some point? I'm not positive on that, though. Dave Newton very well might know, with the reading he went through on the topic.


These were Ford engines, 4.6 2V. This was essentially a repeat of the earlier Ford test. Same methodology, oil aged in a vehicle, subjected to bench tests. This type of testing can't be done in live engines. The wear is measured by measuring radioactivity in the circulating oil. The lifters have some 56Fe converted to 56Co on the wear surface.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Look at some UOAs and you will see it for yourself.


I've seen plenty, and I agree that (to a point) usually longer OCI's results in lower ppm/mile of wear metals.

But I just don't think this phenomenon is attributed to the fact that AW additives are being washed off with fresh oil. Lunacy, if you ask me.

Originally Posted By: Garak
We also have to look at most race oils and dedicated break in lubes. They tend to have exceedingly high AW packages with little to no detergent package.


I've thought of this Garak. I have no explanation for it. It's the only valid counter-point I could come up with.....



I have a personal anecdote. My friend is an engine builder and every weekend he is going to some kind of conference. One of those conferences was by Joe Gibbs motor oil. The representative said when talking about his break in oil that calcium attacks ZDDP which hurts the perfomance of break in oil. That is why their break in oil has very low detergent levels.

If there is truth to this maybe we should go with lower detergent oils for shorter ocis.
Delo hdeo comes to mind, but I cant think of anything in a pcmo grade.

I think it makes sense though. In general it seems since detergents have increased since the sn rating that moly use has increased as well. It may very well be a balancing act between detergents and aw additives.

This has been a good read. Thanks for the education BITOG!
 
What I can't figure out is why all those engines that had oil changed too frequently at 3k/3mo haven't sludged yet. I seem to remember a certain 25 year old Honda (civic?) using Amsoil SS and 3k OCIs in the UOA section , maybe 200-300k miles on it by now, must be a nightmare engine. No AW at all in that thing...
 
Originally Posted By: phishin
1.) Detergents do some "cleaning" because they neutralize acids in the oil. When acids are present, they break down the oil and these byproducts cause deposits to form. So, detergents prevent the acids from creating byproducts and thus, prevent deposits. This is is how detergents "clean". They aren't really cleaning....they are preventing deposits from being formed. Detergents in oil aren't like Dawn Dish Soap and "dissolve" dirt.

2.) Acids are usually seen as positive hydrogen ions (H+). Bases are usually seen as negative hydroxide ions (OH-). When you mix an H+ and a OH- together, they neutralize eachother and you get water (H2O). Too many H+'s around, and you have an acidic environment....which, as I stated above, acids break down oil, cause byproducts, which leads to "dirty" deposits in an engine. Detergents are in oil to prevent this. So, detergents are ionic molecules that are cations (positively charged) and anions (negatively charged). The cations are usually Ca+, Mg+, and Na+. This is what we measure when we do VOA's/UOA's. HOWEVER, it's the ANION that does all the work. It's the negatively charged ANION that will seek out the acidic H+'s in the oil and neutralize them.


This is a pretty good explanation of what detergents really do. Many of them are multifunctional. Combine this with a better understanding of the different kinds of wear that the AW additives are designed to prevent - and it would make answering this question much easier.

UOA wear metals across multiple platforms is (as has been pointed out) not the right way to measure how wear changes over an OCI because there many factors involved. While in some cases oil in service may show decreased wear over fresh oil, the opposite can also be true. There can be many reasons for this. Tribochemical films are often maintained across multiple oci's. This is by design.
 
Originally Posted By: DragRace

Be careful,this forum lately is full of opinions and non-factual "data".



I'm glad its not just me.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Am I the only one who has noticed we have a thread here that is against changing oil? I thought changing oil was a sort of hobby, and now we're warning against it?


The point is changing oil is okay, but too often can be a waste of money. Everything varies by application which is why many questions need to be answered before guessing at your oci.

I've never had a UOA performed. I have no idea hiw much it costs, but i imagine its about the cost of an oil change. So, is it more cost efficient to have an analysis done to make sure I eek out every mile, or just change the oil at a reasonable interval?
 
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Am I the only one who has noticed we have a thread here that is against changing oil? I thought changing oil was a sort of hobby, and now we're warning against it?


The point is changing oil is okay, but too often can be a waste of money. Everything varies by application which is why many questions need to be answered before guessing at your oci.

I've never had a UOA performed. I have no idea hiw much it costs, but i imagine its about the cost of an oil change. So, is it more cost efficient to have an analysis done to make sure I eek out every mile, or just change the oil at a reasonable interval?


The UOA cost varies about as cheap as $19 each if you buy a ten pack or $25 each for basic ones from Blackstone. Add $10 to the Blackstone if you want TBN which is important for extending changes.

It might be cheaper to just change the oil on a small engine but what if you have a big diesel that uses gallons of oil or has an expensive filter? Pretty much the same story for German cars, large sumps sometimes expensive filters.

Also you can detect coolant leaks or air filter problems you wouldn't see with your eyes.

You might need only to do a few analysis before you see that your driving habits are easy on the oil and once you find a sweet spot you don't really need the UOA anymore for TBN.

Some Labs to look into, Blackstone, Polaris Labs, Wear check and Wix.

Just giving you some things to think about its not for everyone, maybe you should run before you get hooked!
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
These were Ford engines, 4.6 2V. This was essentially a repeat of the earlier Ford test.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure of the history off the top of my head.
 
Originally Posted By: jamesyarbrough
That is why their break in oil has very low detergent levels.

Well, whether detergent attacks the AW layer or prevents a fresh one from being laid down (which is obviously important in a new engine), either case is covered by a break in oil having low detergent levels. As for HDEOs, well, that could get [censored] in a hurry. HDEOs either have too much or too little detergent, depending upon which agenda is being pushed.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin

There will always be microscopic deposits. Always. I don't care what oil you use or how short of an OCI you have, there will always be wear and there will always be deposits. No oil's high level of detergents are going to prevent acids from being present (detergents NEUTRALIZE the acids, not prevent them....therefore acidic byproducts cannot be totally avoided, but their quantity can be diminished with high levels of detergents), and no amount of dispersants is going to carry away all of the deposits. Therefore, as deposits form, there is always a chance that the deposits will contain wear metals present in the oil.

I'd be willing to bet if someone was crazy enough to change their oil every 500 miles in a new car (so deposits, varnish, and wear metals are at a steady state), after the break-in miles, you wouldn't see all these "spikes" anymore.


Well stated. The second you turn the key there'll be wear, combustion by-products, etc. going into the oil. Replenishing the oil with fresh new oil will do some cleaning. Don't forget there is always old oil remaining in the engine with deposits etc. in it, which you'll never get out when you change the oil. Depending on the engine and sump capacity it could be quite a bit. That oil instantly mixes with the new fresh oil, any wear metals in that old oil is tossed instantly into it. Combine that with some additional cleaning from the fresh oil, and guess what......

I'd like to see the results of the 500 mile crazy OCI you mentioned, I wonder if it has ever been done?

Originally Posted By: edhackett
I bought the paper and have read it twice. Where to begin? I might as well jump right to the meat of the matter.

This paper does not show that new oil strips the previous anti-wear layers and changing your oil frequently will result increased engine wear. In fact, shows that that doesn't happen.


Bingo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top