Hello again. OP Here. I started a new thread with more detail.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...uf_#Post4068581
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...uf_#Post4068581
NOACK relative to miles that oil is used
- Thread starter slo town
- Start date
- Status
Further to all of that, trying to ascribe one set of circumstances to a Noack value isn't really going to be a productive exercise.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Further to all of that, trying to ascribe one set of circumstances to a Noack value isn't really going to be a productive exercise.
Though it is impossible for me to prove my observations to you, assume for a moment they are true.
Are saying that an oil volume loss of 10.9% (3/4 qt loss from 6.9 qt sump) in the first 128 miles of an oil being used it acceptable to you?
Scott
Further to all of that, trying to ascribe one set of circumstances to a Noack value isn't really going to be a productive exercise.
Though it is impossible for me to prove my observations to you, assume for a moment they are true.
Are saying that an oil volume loss of 10.9% (3/4 qt loss from 6.9 qt sump) in the first 128 miles of an oil being used it acceptable to you?
Scott
Try filling the car a quart low and see what happens. It may be blowing it out via the PCV system. My Cat Diesels used to do the same thing. They were blowing a half-gallon out through the road draft tube in the first thousand miles. As long as I filled them one-half gallon below published capacity it would take them 12,000-20,000 miles to use a gallon.
Originally Posted By: Gene K
Try filling the car a quart low and see what happens. It may be blowing it out via the PCV system. My Cat Diesels used to do the same thing. They were blowing a half-gallon out through the road draft tube in the first thousand miles. As long as I filled them one-half gallon below published capacity it would take them 12,000-20,000 miles to use a gallon.
Hello Gene, I appreciate the input, but that's not the problem. After this initial oil loss (and subsequent top off), no more oil is lost and the oil level remains at the full level/mark for the duration of the OCI.
Thanks,
Scott
Try filling the car a quart low and see what happens. It may be blowing it out via the PCV system. My Cat Diesels used to do the same thing. They were blowing a half-gallon out through the road draft tube in the first thousand miles. As long as I filled them one-half gallon below published capacity it would take them 12,000-20,000 miles to use a gallon.
Hello Gene, I appreciate the input, but that's not the problem. After this initial oil loss (and subsequent top off), no more oil is lost and the oil level remains at the full level/mark for the duration of the OCI.
Thanks,
Scott
Originally Posted By: SLO_Town
Are saying that an oil volume loss of 10.9% (3/4 qt loss from 6.9 qt sump) in the first 128 miles of an oil being used it acceptable to you?
If it halted right there over the OCI, I'd be happy with it. If it didn't, no. I'm just saying that Noack's correlation to consumption is more marketing than science. We had taxis that consumed no noticeable oil over a 6,000 mile OCI on old, high Noack conventional oils, and other that drank it like water, despite having essentially the same engine and all using the same oil from the same batch number.
Your vehicle may simply consume this oil and may be better off with something else. Or, we might just be seeing an outlier or one off quirk. Or, we might be seeing the start of a consumption problem.
My main point is that discussing or chasing Noack isn't helping this issue. I don't dispute that there's an observable phenomenon that's got you rightly concerned. Worrying about Noack or how its tested simply isn't helpful.
Are saying that an oil volume loss of 10.9% (3/4 qt loss from 6.9 qt sump) in the first 128 miles of an oil being used it acceptable to you?
If it halted right there over the OCI, I'd be happy with it. If it didn't, no. I'm just saying that Noack's correlation to consumption is more marketing than science. We had taxis that consumed no noticeable oil over a 6,000 mile OCI on old, high Noack conventional oils, and other that drank it like water, despite having essentially the same engine and all using the same oil from the same batch number.
Your vehicle may simply consume this oil and may be better off with something else. Or, we might just be seeing an outlier or one off quirk. Or, we might be seeing the start of a consumption problem.
My main point is that discussing or chasing Noack isn't helping this issue. I don't dispute that there's an observable phenomenon that's got you rightly concerned. Worrying about Noack or how its tested simply isn't helpful.
Originally Posted By: SLO_Town
Originally Posted By: Gene K
Try filling the car a quart low and see what happens. It may be blowing it out via the PCV system. My Cat Diesels used to do the same thing. They were blowing a half-gallon out through the road draft tube in the first thousand miles. As long as I filled them one-half gallon below published capacity it would take them 12,000-20,000 miles to use a gallon.
Hello Gene, I appreciate the input, but that's not the problem. After this initial oil loss (and subsequent top off), no more oil is lost and the oil level remains at the full level/mark for the duration of the OCI.
Thanks,
Scott
Might try a few different brands if available (LL-01 required?) as Ive had vehicles that seemed to consume one brand more than another and they dont always correlate with NOACK or each other.
Originally Posted By: Gene K
Try filling the car a quart low and see what happens. It may be blowing it out via the PCV system. My Cat Diesels used to do the same thing. They were blowing a half-gallon out through the road draft tube in the first thousand miles. As long as I filled them one-half gallon below published capacity it would take them 12,000-20,000 miles to use a gallon.
Hello Gene, I appreciate the input, but that's not the problem. After this initial oil loss (and subsequent top off), no more oil is lost and the oil level remains at the full level/mark for the duration of the OCI.
Thanks,
Scott
Might try a few different brands if available (LL-01 required?) as Ive had vehicles that seemed to consume one brand more than another and they dont always correlate with NOACK or each other.
Hello All;
Thanks for all your comments.
I suppose my situation is one of the often discussed examples of "my car burns Brand X", but not Brand Y".
In summary, both my BMWs quickly lost 2/3 to 3/4 quart of the Liqui Moly Leiachtlauf HT 5w-40 (both have the same 6.9 quart sump capacity). Using my wife's 328i as the example, this was a 10.9% loss of oil volume in just 128 miles. 100C viscosity increased 9.1% in that same 128 miles (see the VOA and UOA at the beginning of the thread).
It is my belief that the oil consumption using LM was not piston ring blow by, but was rapid oil evaporation caused with the initial heating(s) of the oil. The oil vapors were then drawn into the PCV system and fed into the intake.
Castrol, on the other hand, does not exhibit this behavior. Using Castrol, my 330Ci consumes no oil at all for the entire OCI. After switching out the 328i from LM to Castrol this past weekend, I had to top it off with no more than 1/8 quart after the first 100 miles. This is radically different behavior than I saw with LM, behavior I have more confidence in (confidence in Castrol).
If our BMWs were DI engines (they're not), and I saw both consume 2/3 to 3/4 quart of oil over an OCI using LM, but only 0 to 1/8 quart on Castrol for the same length OCI, I would not recommend LM because of the potential for intake valve deposits. There may also be a risk to the cats as well because the oil is making its way out of the engine via the exhaust.
It seems that, even with the Liqui Moly Leichtlauf HT 5W-40 having all the same approvals as Castrol Edge 0W-40 (in particular BMW LL-01), neither of our BMWs seem to like the Liqui Moly.
And this is the issue I cannot seem to grasp - why two oils with all the same approvals (and viscosity), exhibit such different behavior. I would have expected virtually identical behavior by both of these oil choices.
This tells me that there are real differences in oil brands, even if they have the same approvals. I often see people suggest that it makes no difference which oil is used so long as it has the proper approvals - they're all just as good as each other. In my situation, with both our cars, this is obviously not the case. There is a difference, a big difference.
Once again, thanks to all of you for your time.
Scott
Thanks for all your comments.
I suppose my situation is one of the often discussed examples of "my car burns Brand X", but not Brand Y".
In summary, both my BMWs quickly lost 2/3 to 3/4 quart of the Liqui Moly Leiachtlauf HT 5w-40 (both have the same 6.9 quart sump capacity). Using my wife's 328i as the example, this was a 10.9% loss of oil volume in just 128 miles. 100C viscosity increased 9.1% in that same 128 miles (see the VOA and UOA at the beginning of the thread).
It is my belief that the oil consumption using LM was not piston ring blow by, but was rapid oil evaporation caused with the initial heating(s) of the oil. The oil vapors were then drawn into the PCV system and fed into the intake.
Castrol, on the other hand, does not exhibit this behavior. Using Castrol, my 330Ci consumes no oil at all for the entire OCI. After switching out the 328i from LM to Castrol this past weekend, I had to top it off with no more than 1/8 quart after the first 100 miles. This is radically different behavior than I saw with LM, behavior I have more confidence in (confidence in Castrol).
If our BMWs were DI engines (they're not), and I saw both consume 2/3 to 3/4 quart of oil over an OCI using LM, but only 0 to 1/8 quart on Castrol for the same length OCI, I would not recommend LM because of the potential for intake valve deposits. There may also be a risk to the cats as well because the oil is making its way out of the engine via the exhaust.
It seems that, even with the Liqui Moly Leichtlauf HT 5W-40 having all the same approvals as Castrol Edge 0W-40 (in particular BMW LL-01), neither of our BMWs seem to like the Liqui Moly.
And this is the issue I cannot seem to grasp - why two oils with all the same approvals (and viscosity), exhibit such different behavior. I would have expected virtually identical behavior by both of these oil choices.
This tells me that there are real differences in oil brands, even if they have the same approvals. I often see people suggest that it makes no difference which oil is used so long as it has the proper approvals - they're all just as good as each other. In my situation, with both our cars, this is obviously not the case. There is a difference, a big difference.
Once again, thanks to all of you for your time.
Scott
Originally Posted By: SLO_Town
I suppose my situation is one of the often discussed examples of "my car burns Brand X", but not Brand Y".
That's exactly what I would be thinking, and unless it carries on into the future irrespective of brand choice, it's simply that. As for the "why," if you can answer that reliably, everyone in the automotive world would be eternally grateful.
I suppose my situation is one of the often discussed examples of "my car burns Brand X", but not Brand Y".
That's exactly what I would be thinking, and unless it carries on into the future irrespective of brand choice, it's simply that. As for the "why," if you can answer that reliably, everyone in the automotive world would be eternally grateful.
- Status
Similar threads
