Fuel getting in engine oil

[Black02Silverado]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I hope not. It's a fuel test not run on oil. I actually did these twice a shift when I worked for Chevron USA. I'm not keyboard researching this. 

 

Actually this only means the flash test is less sensitive than a GC. So it isn't a case of under reporting at all. 

 

What it is a case of is...too little to matter. Fuel dilution isn't mutually exclusive to DI engines. It happens to all gasoline engines at cold startup. It is in fact to a higher degree in DI systems as they do not vaporize fuel as a carburetor would, they atomize fuel. 

 

Again to little to matter: 

 

Caution, this guy is crude. Keep the kids and wife at bay. His moral compass is corrupt but his engineering skills are on the money. 

 

 

The video speaks to hydrodynamic interpretation to fuels dilute of the engine oil and ignores the real problem of burned fuels dilute, partially burned fuels dilute. Raw fuel is all he seems to deal with.  You have AW and EP additive that do not rely on hydrodynamic lubrication but surface reactive or non hydrodynamic film forms that gasoline will destroy and eliminate polar properties of the lubricant, all the lubricant and it's additives.

 

The issue of today's modern vehicles that are controlled by an ECM have fuels dilute by design fuel mapping, nature of the beast. Some vehicles will show lower fuels dilute but the chemistry of the fuels residual is causing serious wear.   You have aggressive soft metals reactivity or harder iron parts that wear at a higher level. That is why it is important that a UOA needs to be as accurate as it can in showing fuels dilution.

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

The video speaks to hydrodynamic interpretation to fuels dilute of the engine oil and ignores the real problem of burned fuels dilute, partially burned fuels dilute. Raw fuel is all he seems to deal with.  You have AW and EP additive that do not rely on hydrodynamic lubrication but surface reactive or non hydrodynamic film forms that gasoline will destroy and eliminate polar properties of the lubricant, all the lubricant and it's additives.

 

 Some vehicles will show lower fuels dilute but the chemistry of the fuels residual is causing serious wear.   You have aggressive soft metals reactivity or harder iron parts that wear at a higher level. That is why it is important that a UOA needs to be as accurate as it can in showing fuels dilution.

 

 

 

Listen again all the way through. He speaks to all forms of fuel dilution.  I know it's hard to hear when your mind's made up. He also states what Joe Average can do about it and what to look for. I included it so I wouldn't have to spend half a day drafting a post he does in minutes. 

 

May I assume then that you also feel carburetors were much better controlling dilution? "The issue of today's modern vehicles that are controlled by an ECM have fuels dilute by design fuel mapping, nature of the beast". Wow! That's harsh....So you mean better than 'stab the 20-50 CC accelerator pump a few times and let the choke dump' sort of "by design"? 

 

I understand you have oil to sell but common sense needs a listen. There is one way into the cylinder and two ways out. Out the tail pipe as part of spent gasses or past the rings via the oil film...so...no matter what spin you sales pitch hurls the end game it's the film on the cylinder wall and scrapping by the rings. There's no trap door past the rings. The answer is still NILL amounts unless there is a mechanical issue OR you do as he states then film. Start. Run 5 minutes and shut off. Repeat 10 hours later sort of driving. 

 

 

 

 

[Black02Silverado]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Listen again all the way through. He speaks to all forms of fuel dilution.  I know it's hard to hear when your mind's made up. He also states what Joe Average can do about it and what to look for. I included it so I wouldn't have to spend half a day drafting a post he does in minutes. 

 

May I assume then that you also feel carburetors were much better controlling dilution? "The issue of today's modern vehicles that are controlled by an ECM have fuels dilute by design fuel mapping, nature of the beast". Wow! That's harsh....So you mean better than 'stab the 20-50 CC accelerator pump a few times and let the choke dump' sort of "by design"? 

 

I understand you have oil to sell but common sense needs a listen. There is one way into the cylinder and two ways out. Out the tail pipe as part of spent gasses or past the rings via the oil film...so...no matter what spin you sales pitch hurls the end game it's the film on the cylinder wall and scrapping by the rings. There's no trap door past the rings. The answer is still NILL amounts unless there is a mechanical issue OR you do as he states then film. Start. Run 5 minutes and shut off. Repeat 10 hours later sort of driving. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying this to sell oil. I'm trying to help others to be well informed.  Carb engines dilute as well, it is just mechanical. If one is going to spend their money to get their oil analyzed it is better to use a service that has updated equipment for the task at hand. Not to mention a well qualified individual/staff that has the knowledge to interpret the results from years of experience and educational background. 

 

Would Blackstone go as far as to testify in court if there was an issue with your equipment that was proven from a UOA that caught it and the manufacture states it was the oil not their equipment?

 

As I stated above, I have sent samples off to Blackstone and Dysonanalysis on several occasions from different vehicles and the results are always the same, Blackstone doesn't show any fuel dilution but DysonAnalysis does. Not putting down Blackstone. Your service is only as good as your equipment and like all things equipment and to update said equipment is very expensive.

[Grumpy Bear]

2 minutes ago, Black02Silverado said:

I'm not saying this to sell oil. I'm trying to help others to be well informed.  Carb engines dilute as well, it is just mechanical. If one is going to spend their money to get their oil analyzed it is better to use a service that has updated equipment for the task at hand. Not to mention a well qualified individual/staff that has the knowledge to interpret the results from years of experience and educational background. 

 

Would Blackstone go as far as to testify in court if there was an issue with your equipment that was proven from a UOA that caught it and the manufacture states it was the oil not their equipment?

 

As I stated above, I have sent samples off to Blackstone and Dysonanalysis on several occasions from different vehicles and the results are always the same, Blackstone doesn't show any fuel dilution but DysonAnalysis does. Not putting down Blackstone. Your service is only as good as your equipment and like all things equipment and to update said equipment is very expensive.

I could care less about Blackstone or Dyson. What I care about is truth and the truth is, dilution is present in all Internal combustion engines. Unless there is a fuel system related mechanical issue the balance of any 'what if' is directly in the hands of the operator via his day to day equipment operating habits and his/her maintenance habits. 

 

The truth about fuel dilution is as old as the ICE itself not something that just sprang up in the last decade or even the last five decades. My mother use to have a saying that went, "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts every time they jumped". Well son, "If engines didn't have rings and cylinders didn't build pressure there wouldn't be fuel dilution". But there is, and here's the bottom line...It ain't that big a deal. In fact it's not only normal, it's unavoidable. 

 

If you really want someone to be well informed......start with explaining WHY 'normal' and 'unavoidable' dilution isn't that big a deal. I mean by your figuring a two stroke motor shouldn't last a minute. 30 to 60 parts fuel to 1 part oil...now there's some dilution, eh? Think a flash cup would catch that? Think SAAB knew that? 

 

I've got my popcorn and you have the floor.....

 

PS Hydrodynamic is the lubrication state in a rolling element like a rod or main journal, not a cylinder wall which is a sliding motion. That would be boundary lubrication. 

 

[gone_fishing]

I've had Blackstone run few UOA's on my Sierra. Every report has had <0.5% fuel and average around 20-25 PPM of iron with 7300 mile OCI (mostly highway).

[Black02Silverado]

11 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I could care less about Blackstone or Dyson. What I care about is truth and the truth is, dilution is present in all Internal combustion engines. Unless there is a fuel system related mechanical issue the balance of any 'what if' is directly in the hands of the operator via his day to day equipment operating habits and his/her maintenance habits. 

 

The truth about fuel dilution is as old as the ICE itself not something that just sprang up in the last decade or even the last five decades. My mother use to have a saying that went, "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts every time they jumped". Well son, "If engines didn't have rings and cylinders didn't build pressure there wouldn't be fuel dilution". But there is, and here's the bottom line...It ain't that big a deal. In fact it's not only normal, it's unavoidable. 

 

If you really want someone to be well informed......start with explaining WHY 'normal' and 'unavoidable' dilution isn't that big a deal. I mean by your figuring a two stroke motor shouldn't last a minute. 30 to 60 parts fuel to 1 part oil...now there's some dilution, eh? Think a flash cup would catch that? Think SAAB knew that? 

 

I've got my popcorn and you have the floor.....

 

PS Hydrodynamic is the lubrication state in a rolling element like a rod or main journal, not a cylinder wall which is a sliding motion. That would be boundary lubrication. 

So what  you are saying is that fuel dilution is normal and unavoidable and so testing for it is pointless.  Makes sense since the average person doesn't keep their vehicle long enough for it to make a difference and if there is an issue with a stuck injector or high pressure fuel pump, (very rare) they will not notice until it is to late to do anything about.  I say high fuel dilute is one reason GM went with an 8qt sump and reduced their power train warranty. It can help the engine last longer to get past the warranty period. Other wise why change either since they worked so well all the years prior.

 

I don't have any hobbies, don't do sports, don't fish or hunt, basically just do a lot of cycling and do oil analysis on vehicles to see how things are going.  I did save me a few times, once on my daughters Cruze. Had fuels issue and took it to the dealer and they found the valve in the intake broke and a cracked vacuum line.  Got it take care of under warranty.  The other was on a friends Buick, found coolant in his oil even though it all looked  and ran fine.  Turned out it had the infamous intake gasket leak. 

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, Ed HD said:

So, I acquired my 2017 from the company my dad sold here a few weeks back, and when I picked it up it needed an oil change. Truck had 46,200 miles 

 

17 SILVERADO-171217.pdf

Getting back to Ed's question. Three questions for you. 

 

1) Did you get the fuel system checked out? 

2.) Have you had the coolant system pressure checked?

3.) Estimate your average trip length. 

 

Direct Injection delivers a good more fuel in a single start up to a cool or cold motor than about 5-7 miles of warmed up highway driving. More than a warmed up carbureted motor would use in a full day of short hop start ups. If that's the case and all other things check out okay you only defense is a shorter oil change interval which I see in the report has been advised. Odd as it may sound short tripping a motor is 'harsh use'. If your injectors are not leaking and your coolant system pressure checks fine then you either change your driving habits or your maintenance habits. IMHO> 

 

One other observation from your report. The viscosity is right on the money for a motor sporting 3% fuel dilution. That's odd. Don't you think? Given the wear metals levels, which are not hideous, it would seem to indicate a loss of viscosity and yet.......That sort of thing hints of heat management. I might be temped to monitor pan bulk oil temperatures. Just say'n. 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:10 AM, Black02Silverado said:

So what  you are saying is that fuel dilution is normal and unavoidable and so testing for it is pointless.  Makes sense since the average person doesn't keep their vehicle long enough for it to make a difference and if there is an issue with a stuck injector or high pressure fuel pump, (very rare) they will not notice until it is to late to do anything about.  I say high fuel dilute is one reason GM went with an 8qt sump and reduced their power train warranty. It can help the engine last longer to get past the warranty period. Other wise why change either since they worked so well all the years prior.

 

I don't have any hobbies, don't do sports, don't fish or hunt, basically just do a lot of cycling and do oil analysis on vehicles to see how things are going.  I did save me a few times, once on my daughters Cruze. Had fuels issue and took it to the dealer and they found the valve in the intake broke and a cracked vacuum line.  Got it take care of under warranty.  The other was on a friends Buick, found coolant in his oil even though it all looked  and ran fine.  Turned out it had the infamous intake gasket leak. 

Not pointless just not as alarming as it may seem. It's kind of like when someone says you have milk on your face. It's been there since breakfast but because you couldn't see it, it wasn't alarming. You're just not concerned with what you don't know. When people first read an oil report their hair stands on end. You remember what it was like, right? Are you as upset with what you see now as you were the first time? Has not repeated exposure to these reports calmed you and more importantly given you some insights you didn't have before? It helps you define 'normal' from 'abnormal' and places some cause to an effect. 

 

As far as 8 quart systems. Yea...well... My educated guess would have to be it has more to do with the higher 'normal' operating temperatures and the desire to lengthen oil change intervals. You bet DI systems dump fuel faster with repeated starting than any other form of fuel management. Now they want to do 'start/stop'? I hear an echo from the past, "the solution to pollution is dilution". 

[HondaHawkGT]

On 1/25/2018 at 10:58 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

I hope not. It's a fuel test not run on oil. I actually did these twice a shift when I worked for Chevron USA. I'm not keyboard researching this. 

 

Actually this only means the flash test is less sensitive than a GC. So it isn't a case of under reporting at all. 

 

What it is a case of is...too little to matter. Fuel dilution isn't mutually exclusive to DI engines. It happens to all gasoline engines at cold startup. It is in fact to a higher degree in DI systems as they do not vaporize fuel as a carburetor would, they atomize fuel. 

 

Again to little to matter: 

 

Caution, this guy is crude. Keep the kids and wife at bay. His moral compass is corrupt but his engineering skills are on the money. 

 

 

That clown also thinks that using anyting other than 87 octane is a waste, despite clear indisputable evidence that the majority of modern engines are designed to maximize performance and efficiency of whatever grade of fuel it's burning by using knock sensors and high performance ECU's. I don't disagree with him every time but he's way off-base just as often as he's on the money.

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 3:45 AM, HondaHawkGT said:

That clown also thinks that using anyting other than 87 octane is a waste, despite clear indisputable evidence that the majority of modern engines are designed to maximize performance and efficiency of whatever grade of fuel it's burning by using knock sensors and high performance ECU's. I don't disagree with him every time but he's way off-base just as often as he's on the money.

I've learned this from internet forums; If you cast a large enough blanket statement utilizing vague enough terms and lead with a caricature assessment disparaging enough and finish with a statement of opinion framed as an indisputable truth it almost sounds like you know what your taking about while never actually providing any truth or even any relevant facts for that matter.  If you play this right you can get all those who spent hundreds on their custom tunes to support you and put a few supporting aftermarket sponsors out of business all in the same day. 

 

Just so no one mistakes my support of John Cadogan's engineering skills as support of his vulgar missives let me be clear I neither agree with his take on morality nor God which he seems to toss under busses with equal abandon and ease.