2013 Nissan Rogue, MC 5w-30, 4,400 mi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
439
Location
US
2013 Nissan Rogue with Motorcraft semi-synthetic and Motorcraft filter. 4,400 miles over 4 month period, with many short trips.

Nissan QR25DE 2.5L engine.

I was concerned that I was significantly under utilizing my oil, but that does not appear to the be case.

 
Last edited:
Looks decent. I ran Castrol Magnatec about 5K miles from mid November thru end of April. I seemed top be doing fine when I dumped it.

Looks like you got yours out before its started thickening.

Perfect.

How is you gas mileage? - I'm not to happy with mine at 22.5 winter and 24.5 summer average but I guess its average for the class except the Subaru Forester.
 
Wear #'s are fine. TBN getting low, but still safe IMO. Did you add any make up oil? Was it low on oil at time of change? Even under your severe usage, you were likely good for 5k.
 
Thanks.

No makeup oil added. Oil level remained between add and full lines during entire OCI.
 
Thanks!

The Rogue is getting about 24 MPG with 50/50 driving. EPA has the Rogue at 25 MPG combined, so can't really complain.
 
Originally Posted By: TheOilWizard
...I was concerned that I was significantly under utilizing my oil, but that does not appear to the be case.



First - Welcome to the site.
welcome2.gif


Second, I'm going to disagree with your assessment. 1.3ppm / 1k miles of Fe is NOT anything but desirable wear. The other wear metals are categorically low as well. Nothing is out of line here. For Pete's sake - you don't even have any wear metals anywhere close to double digits! TBN will often drop precipitously at first, but then stabilize. Even if TAN were to cross-over, I've not seen any detrimental effect in well-managed engines of recent vintage.

It is proven in both SAE study and my data analysis that wear rates will drop with the lengthening of the OCI. Your Fe wear has dropped after the OCI and will likely stay that low, with even 2x or 3x this 4400 mile duration.


To me, it appears that you are most certainly "significantly under-utilizing" your lube; tossing it out at 4400 miles is a waste.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply, dnewton3. I'll admit that I was most looking forward to your response after reading some of your previous threads.

Be aware that the severe service schedule from Nissan does specify a 3,700/3 month interval for my vehicle. One could easily read the manual and have a solid case that my driving conditions are indeed severe - I'm not saying I agree, but literal interruption of the manual could indicate so. Splitting the difference at 4,400 miles and 4 months was "safe" until a UOA could be done. And being that I'm still in warranty, I can't exceed 6 months / 7,500 miles in any event.

With the data you have in front of you, what would you feel comfortable pushing the OCI out to?

Thanks for this comment: "TBN will often drop precipitously at first, but then stabilize". That's exactly why I wanted some expert opinions. This is my first UOA, so I was not aware of that fact.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
1.3ppm / 1k miles of Fe is NOT anything but desirable wear. The other wear metals are categorically low as well. Nothing is out of line here.

It is proven in both SAE study and my data analysis that wear rates will drop with the lengthening of the OCI. Your Fe wear has dropped after the OCI and will likely stay that low, with even 2x or 3x this 4400 mile duration.

To me, it appears that you are most certainly "significantly under-utilizing" your lube; tossing it out at 4400 miles is a waste.


I tend to agree with the observations made by D Newton.

Follow the maintenance schedule to keep the warranty valid, but you are obviously not experiencing any appreciable wear (Neither engine, nor oil) in your Rogue.
 
I encourage people to always consider the entirety of their ownership. If your vehicle is still under warranty, and you're concerned about a failure that may be denied, then by all means, OCI as you see fit. It's not "wrong" to do what you did. But your comments were about the oil, not warranty. You stated you were concerned about under-utilizing the lube. You clearly did.

And actually, this is a perfect example (one of MANY across most brands of vehicles) that clearly shows "severe" really isn't, well, severe. You used the vehicle in the worst manner the OEM prescribes, and yet the lube came back with admirably low wear across the board.

I had a 1995 Mercury Villager (uses a Nissan Maxima drive-train). We had it got and drove it to just shy of 250k miles before selling it to a needy single mother (it's still in service today). That van was the quintessential soccer mom bus; it saw an uncounted number of short hops, cold starts, idle time the vast majority of it's life. While under warranty, I did as the manual instructed for OCIs. Totally "severe" by OEM definition in the manual. Then warranty expired and I started manipulating the OCIs and testing. And yet, when I did my experiment of OCIs extensions, true to form, the wear rates DROPPED as the OCIs got longer, all the way out to 15k miles on Supertech dino oil! I didn't start my experiments until after it was out of warranty. But once out, it was my little play toy in terms of lube/filter quests. Yet the use factor of "severe service" never changed. If I had changed oil every 3k miles as they suggested, I would have spent a lot more money in O/FCIs, and got back absolutely nothing. My point is that doing their "severe" maintenance plan didn't reduce the wear at all, but extending the OCIs did, even though the use was always "severe".

I have studied just about every major brand of OEM, across a LOT of engine series. With very rare exception, "severe" use (short trips, idle time, towing) never manifests into any major shift in wear rates. Doing these things called "severe" never seems to alter the wear rates; certainly not to a statistical sense. And yet, regardless of use factor, making the OCI longer almost always results in a favorable Fe wear drop. (Most other metals are so low they're inconsequential in the first place).

Why do OEMs make these critera so important? They are covering their posteriors. If a problem were to occur (very rare), frequent OCIs will wash away the problems to some degree. If you have a coolant leak or an air intake leak, the frequent OCIs will wash out the evidence and mask the problem. On top of that, it costs the OEM absolutely zilch to spend YOUR money! More of your OCIs costs them nothing. So it's a win for them and a loss for you.

Now - understanding that some oils are reasonably inexpensive, and sump sizes are small in most cars, the cost of frequent OCIs isn't overtly painful. I get that. But when we pay for UOA data, why would we want to ignore it? Often, a Blackstone UOA will cost more than an OCI, at least in some smaller sumps. If you pay for information and it tells you that all is well DESPITE the fanatic panic of the OEM, then why ignore it?


I understand why OEMs do it; it's cheap insurance for them. But it's not cheap insurance for the owner. If there's no reason to suspect contamination intrusion, then short OCIs are a total and complete waste of money, regardless what brand/grade/base stock is in the crankcase, or how you use it.


I just finished up looking over 4400 UOAs for the GM Vortec engine series. And true to form, the Fe wear rates drop from a high of 4.3ppm/1k miles at 3k mile intervals, to as low as 2.4ppm/1k miles at 15k miles. FIVE oil changes would occur from 3k to 15k miles in "severe" use, and yet the UOA clearly proves that LONGER OCIs have LESS WEAR! I have yet to discover an engine family that doesn't exhibit this phenomenon. Here's a list of some of the major engine series I've studied:
Ford modular 4.6, 5.4, 6.8
Ford Vulcan 3.0 OHV
Toyota 3.4L V-6
Saturn 2.0L
GM Duramax
Detroit D60
GM Vortec 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2
Cummins ISB
Nissan VG30E
Ford EB 3.5
Ford Duratec I-4
GM gen I 350 v-8
etc ...
And every single series of engines, spread across more than 15,000 UOAs, shows that as OCIs get longer, Fe wear rates drop. And they drop despite any manner of service factor, use factor, environmental factor. "Severe service" isn't about the use of the engine; it's about the abuse of your wallet.


Again, I understand why OEMs do it. I understand why those under warranty do it. But when you pay for information, why ignore it?
Despite the severity of your OCI, your engine wear was incredibly low. And it will only get lower with OCI extension, despite all the fear mongering.

But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. Run the next out out to the "normal" OCI (7.5k miles?). See what your Fe wear rate is, and then make a decision.
Or, if you're 100% committed to doing the OEM short OCIs, then quit paying for wasted information. By ignoring the data, you're just doubling down on waste by blowing off information AND wasting oil. Why do both? I'd rather you did neither, but for goodness sake don't double down on it!


.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

And every single series of engines, spread across more than 15,000 UOAs, shows that as OCIs get longer, Fe wear rates drop. And they drop despite any manner of service factor, use factor, environmental factor.


That's just iron levels, though.
What about other metals?
It doesn't matter if your iron cylinder walls are not wearing if your aluminum pistons are in the process of disappearing......

I'm not worried about metals increasing....,
I'm usually worried about varnish/sludge/other deposits from high mileage intervals.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JBinKC
Na seems very high. Phillips uses boron as the main element in their detergent.



Agree. Unless the last OCI was on Valvoline/NAPA or one of the boutique sodium motor oils, the Na level shouldn't be like that.
 
Based on everything I've read, including multiple comments by SonofJoe (a retired motor oil formulator), I wouldn't attach much importance to wear metals when it comes to evaluating the condition of oil. To give you some context on wear metal readings in UOAs, if I recall correctly, SonofJoe recently said that he wouldn't worry about wear metals under 200ppm.

The fact is that oil breaks down and the more it breaks down, the more deposits it leaves and the less it behaves according to design specification. The effect of this is cumulative. An oil change does not reset this to zero.

Now, also consider that modern engines and modern oils are very robust. Even with significant sludge, they continue to operate. I don't doubt that we can all go double the manufacturer oci and engines will last a long long time. But the engine is unlikely to be as close to factory clean as it would be if manufacturer ocis had been followed.

The driver may not think or feel there is anything happening. But I'm of the opinion that there's a chance that deposits build up over multiple ocis and that even during a single oci, degrading oil doesn't perform as well. I did a two year oci with half the one year oci mileage and the engine felt so so much better when it got fresh oil. But at the one and a half year point, the UOA looked absolutely fine, including TBN, which led me to continue to the two year point.

Everybody's circumstances are different. The engine, the oil used, the driving style and how that all comes together. That's why intelligent OLM's are so helpful, but in lieu of them, the manufacturer guidance has logic in it. Your viscosity means you're now definitely running a xw20 and your TBN is at the point where many OLM's and oil analysis labs will say you should change the oil. Your manufacturer's 3 month / 3750 mile oci seems to be in line with those readings and pretty accurate. Additionally, consider that Motorcraft oils have very high Noack which I believe means it is leaving more deposits. I think it's good to change out the oil.

My vehicles do not have intelligent OLM's so instead I have factored in the manufacturer recommendations, UOAs and which oil I'm running to make my decisions. One vehicle has a suggested 5000 mile / 6 month oci. It does 5000 miles in a year. While it does short trips, I have a favorable climate and it gets fully warmed up at least once every week. I typically run full syn between 5000 to 7500 miles depending on how many several hour trips the vehicle sees during an oci. The time period will be 12-15 months. Another vehicle has suggested 10000 mile / 1 year oci. It sees only 3000 miles a year. It does short trips but not as short as the other vehicle and I also make sure it gets fully warmed up once a week. I'm probably going to go with 18 month oil changes seeing that the 24 month oil change felt like it had been too long.

So for me, the objective in timing an oil change is to change it before it degrades and affects performance and / or produces deposits. For some engines and driving styles, that may mean 15,000 on dino is doable. For me, on different vehicles, it's meant something different. But wear metals have not been the basis of my decision making.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: JBinKC
Na seems very high. Phillips uses boron as the main element in their detergent.



Agree. Unless the last OCI was on Valvoline/NAPA or one of the boutique sodium motor oils, the Na level shouldn't be like that.


This is completely possible as the previous oil change was at a Nissan dealership.
 
Thanks everyone for all of your responses.

Dnewton3, your point in regard to wear numbers and extended intervals is well taken.

However, are you able to address the later posts in that extended OCIs, while they do not increase wear numbers proportionally, can lead to sludge/varnish formation? I am genuinely interested in your view on this.
 
In the context of lubricant-related components longevity evaluation , lower(est) quantitative metal wear rates was primarily the ultimate determinant in objective performance studies/assessment/comparison ,but ........
it has since been clouded (thanks to adverts!) with secondary AND qualitative/subjective parameters like varnish formation/sleep well/butt dyno etc ......

I sometimes sigh, why ever bother with quantitative and objective UOA analyses and expense/time......
when decisions on OCI is always 'determined' by qualitative/subjective AND secondary (non-critical) parameters!

Dnewton3,I'm with you btw.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TheOilWizard
Thanks everyone for all of your responses.

Dnewton3, your point in regard to wear numbers and extended intervals is well taken.

However, are you able to address the later posts in that extended OCIs, while they do not increase wear numbers proportionally, can lead to sludge/varnish formation? I am genuinely interested in your view on this.




First, we must understand that UOAs, by themselves, are not the end-all-be-all answer for everything. But, since none of us want to do or pay for an engine tear-down every 10k miles to measure bearing clearances and cylinder wall wear, we're kind of stuck with either not knowing anything (blind OCIs with no info), or using UOAs. I choose to be informed, and use the information to my benefit. I combine the UOA data with industry information such as engine family trends for failures (if any), and back that up with physical observations (checking coolant levels, PCs, noises, visual observations, etc ...). A single UOA does not tell us a whole lot. But a slew of them (from macro data analysis), from a bunch of vehicles with high mileage, indicates we can make very solid conclusions based upon propensity of positive experiences. IOW - if 500 different engines all of the same family exhibit a favorable wear rate of Fe, and those vehicles range from new to very-high exposure, then it's likely to be a tale of successful fortune when your one engine posts the same data as all others.

This is about statistical analysis. It's done ALL the time in production of toothpaste, stereo speakers, tires, gun ammo, bolts, water purification, etc ... And large groups are done with macro data analysis. If a company produces a product in high volume, and that product succeeds well in the market with a great reputation for longevity, then understanding the performance parameters of that product can predict similar/same experiences for successive products of that ilk.

As to the topic of sludge and such, I'll remind everyone that the UOA will tell us how the oil is doing in terms of this as well. Blackstone will give you an "insolubles" count; it's essentially a combo of both soot and oxidation. Other services will separate out the soot and oxidation. But the point is that it's not like we're blind here. The inference some folks make is that while wear metals rates are low, it's possible that there is a dastardly build up of sludge going on in the engine. Well, if your soot/ox counts are low, I'd like to ask those folks where in the blazes they think that "build up of sludge" is coming from? If it does not exist in the oil UOA, then how in the heck can it exist on the surfaces of the engine? Let's look at a few potential conditions and analyze the effects:

High soot and high ox in the UOA counts - it's possible that this could be a result of one of two things:
1) the numbers are high because the add-pack is nearing its limit, and while still capable, the oil is nearing saturation in terms of it's ability to hold contamination in suspension, and running much further will cause the precipitation of solids onto surfaces. If you OCI soon, it will be OK, but if you run much further, sludge will begin to form.
2) the numbers are high because the add-pack has already been overwhelmed, and it's truly leaving deposits on surfaces. i.e. it's too late; sludge is forming.
Either one of these conditions has to have precursors. The UOA would likely show a high insoluble count, or a high soot/ox count. It's not sludge can happen and not show up in the lube. If you're getting sludge on the engine, and you're not paying attention to the UOAs, is that the oils fault or yours? It's up to you to manage the OCI, not the oil. The oil does a job. It's your job to track the oil's success. If your engine is sludged up, it's due to your negligence and not the lube's fault.

Low soot and low ox in the UOA counts - this can only be a result of one thing ...
The oil add pack is doing it's job. The contamination is being controlled by the additives, and the oil is no where near being overwhelmed.

My point is this ... We get good indication in the UOA as to whether sludge is going to form or not, because we can see if the lube is anywhere near being compromised. If the UOA counts show high soot/ox, then you'd better start looking physically for sludge by pulling off a valve cover, using a bore scope, etc. But if your insolubels are low, then there is very little chance that you're at risk for sludge. It is impossible for contamination to bypass the lube and travel from combustion right to the surface of the head or lands of the rings. It has to be carried places by the oil. So if your oil shows a low soot/ox contamination level, it's likely that sludge isn't forming. There are times when you'll see small pockets of heavy varnish in the corners of a cylinder head, because the oil will pool in a small pocket. While aesthetically distasteful, that's not going to cause an engine to seize up; this must be kept in context.
In short, the oil cannot deposit something on the engine surface that does not exist in the lube itself! So if your UOA looks good for soot/ox, then your engine is likely not being sludged up.


As for the comment from others about Al and Fe wear rates, clearly those are to be considered as well. However, I can say with absolute certainty that Fe is the number one cumulative metal in a UOA. Almost always, the other four (Al, Cr, Cu, Pb) will be in the single digits, regardless if you run 3k or 13k miles. I wholly agree that watching all wear metals is important, but those will typically fall to near or below 1ppm/1k miles; a wear rate so low as to be able to relieve all concern. I'm not saying to ignore them; just understand that they tend low and stay low, most of the time. A time to be concerned with the others is when you see them in context of other concerns. If you see sodium/potassium rise and also metals rise, you've got coolant intrusion. If you see both Fe and Cr rise, then you've got cylinder/ring wear. If you get Al with your Fe, it's piston wear. If you see Al alone and it's a Ford, it may be bearings. If you see first Cu and then Pb, it may also be bearings. All this has to be in context. But generally, a good wearing engine will ONLY show an accumulation of Fe with the OCI extension. The other metals tend to blip up at the front end of the OCI, and then settle down to very low levels after that.

Occasionally we'll see Cu spike alone; typically a reaction from a Cu based oil cooler and a chemistry change in the lube being used, such as one with high esters or amines. I cannot explain this phenomenon down to great detail; I'm not a chemist. But I see the evidence of it at times, and accept it for what it is; essentially harmless. Cu could also be a bearing, but would likely be followed by Pb shortly thereafter. If Cu spikes after a lube change, and then settles over successive OCIs, it's just the chelation of Cu from the reaction.
 
Here's something SonofJoe said about extending ocis. The danger with extending ocis is that the oil can rapidly degrade when you go too far. Wear metals are irrelevant in calculating when it's too far.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Most US PCMOs are pretty good in terms of their oxidative stability on account of the fact that they're made from Group II base oil (at least) and you have tests in GF-5 which if anything, 'over-treat' the oil with antioxidant, dispersant and detergent. Under normal use, I'd guess most oils would be dark and see some TBN depletion at 5k miles, approach total TBN depletion by 10k, followed by total collapse of the oil accompanied by serious sludge deposition at somewhere approaching 15k.

Sludge always forms very rapidly as a result of condensation/polymerisation reactions forming big molecules which are inherently insoluble. The process is usually 'visible' as a rapid rise in the oil's viscosity. If you haven't see a rise in KV, then you almost certainly won't have sludge.

On last thing. The tests used to demonstrate the 'cleaning power' of oil are IMO a bit artificial. You run an engine to produce some sludge but deliberately stop the test before it gets too bad. You then drain the oil, whack in the good stuff and immediately restart the engine and see what happens. Because the sludge is relatively fresh and present as a relatively thin layer, it can in time be reduced/removed. However had the sludge had time to thicken up and 'bake' (like in the photo) then even the best oil would struggle to make a dent in it.
 
I agree CharlieBauer. UOAs are a very helpful component to help assess the oil's ability to either continue in service or take it out. As a end all and be all of whether or not a motor is wearing out or if it is wearing well is not really the case. This is analogous to computer models and weather forecasting. The models are a very helpful tool in that process as well. But they are not the end all and be all either.
The gold standard for where a motor really is in terms of wear is a complete tear down, weighing parts and measuring them as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top