Post your latest oil change.

[Grumpy Bear]

21,300 Mile Service

 

2014 Buick Verano (Prissy) wife named her.  

2.4 Ecotec I-4

 

2,700 mile OCI but more than a year in the motor. It was time. 

This motor uses no oil that one can measure. 

 

4 quarts 24 ounces Red Line "International" HP 5W30 + 3.5 oz ZDDP

I Mobil 1 filter. 

 

That was the last of my plant swap International stock. It was a one time label. I expect it, by labs, is the Euro oil in universal packaging.

 

Yes those are the original miles. She doesn't get out much.  Garage kept sunny day car or long haul touring ride. 

[Grumpy Bear]

30,000 Mile Service

Raven

 

2024 Mitsubishi Mirage G4

1200 cc. Triple and Jatco FE015E (CV7) CVT

 

3,750 mile OCI. No usage.

 

3 quarts + 3 oz Red Line HP Euro Series 5W40 + 3 oz Red Line ZDDP additive.

1 Purolator PL 14610 filter

Sample drawn. 

 

Replaced CVT valve body filter, Beck Arnley #044-0467 filter. 

2 quart drop and fill Red Line Non-Slip CVT fluid J4 compatible

 

 

[customboss]

Sea Level to 600 msl @ 75 mph southern Indiana on I-69 , 75 F about 99% humidity. Amsoil Signature Series cooling driveline. 28 mpg. In Colorado it achieves 40.5 mpg @ 7000 msl 

Engine oil Valvoline Advanced 0w16. 
First time it’s ever had 87 octane gasoline E10. 

Edited August 21, 2025 by customboss

[Atlas]

8/20/25
2025 Silverado 3.0
508 miles
508 miles on oil OLM at 80%
Oil Mobil 1 0w20 ESPx2, DexosD (7.0qt)
AcDelco PF66 filter out and PF66 filter on
 

No noticeable consumption in the first 500 miles

[Black02Silverado]

8/13/2025

2022 Jeep Wrangler 3.0 Ecodiesel

5k on oil

49k on Vehicle OLM at 33%

AMSOIL EFM 5w-30 9qts

Ecoguard oil filter.

AMSOIL Diesel Injector Clean with Cetane Boost each fill up.

No oil consumption.

 

[Black02Silverado]

They reran the test since Calcium for the AMSOIL EFM is supposed to be 2700 or higher.  This is more like the other Ecodiedel UOA's I have seen.

 

[Grumpy Bear]

16 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

They reran the test since Calcium for the AMSOIL EFM is supposed to be 2700 or higher.  This is more like the other Ecodiedel UOA's I have seen.

 

 

 

On the first run total wear metals were 0.8 ppm but on the rerun they are 8 ppm?  From perfect to 

 

What's that about? 

[customboss]

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

On the first run total wear metals were 0.8 ppm but on the rerun they are 8 ppm?  From perfect to 

 

What's that about? 

Lab has goofed up the rerun. The wear #'s would not change that much and frankly I cant trust the calcium values either.  Of course Grumpy won't see this reply cause he's sensitive.....

 

[Black02Silverado]

5 minutes ago, customboss said:

Lab has goofed up the rerun. The wear #'s would not change that much and frankly I cant trust the calcium values either.  Of course Grumpy won't see this reply cause he's sensitive.....

 

Personally I think they ran a different sample. Who knows what goes on inside the lab. It’s not hard considering I used to watch them burn the oil samples after we ran a Pratt &Whitney F100-220 jet engine at our JOAP lab. 

[customboss]

5 minutes ago, Black02Silverado said:

Personally I think they ran a different sample. Who knows what goes on inside the lab. It’s not hard considering I used to watch them burn the oil samples after we ran a Pratt &Whitney F100-220 jet engine at our JOAP lab. 

What I dealt with every day for 45 years!  Getting it right first time is not as easy as it looks.  

[txab]

So when do you trust results as someone who doesn't read these things regularly?

[customboss]

2 hours ago, txab said:

So when do you trust results as someone who doesn't read these things regularly?

Well,…….I got good at interpreting them after about 20 years of running lab equipment and correlating that data with teardown engine, trans, gearbox failure analysis. 
 

There are no constantly good analysts or labs remaining. $20 oil analysts sealed our fate. Oh and consumers who know EVERYTHING.

[Grumpy Bear]

9 hours ago, txab said:

So when do you trust results as someone who doesn't read these things regularly?

 

Patterns. Trends. History. Never take a single result to seriously. Expect mistakes from humans. Perfect people are hard to come by.  There have only been three in our entire history. 

 

Dad used to say, "I can do business with a liar because I know what he is. That perfect guy is trouble". 

 

There are over 8 BILLION people on this planet. I'll bet everyone of them can find some fault in me. Know why? Because I have some. Many in fact. 

 

Flawless people are nonexistent. There are only those that think so. Most of them have degrees.   

 

Science in and of itself is perfect. That's God world. Our understanding of it sometimes is flawed and we fumble around like the blind in a minefield in our attempts to measure and quantify it. Some care more than others, granted, BUT....I've seen guys send the same samples to multiple labs and get different results from every one of them. The question is, How different and does it matter? 

 

One lab measures 3 ppm iron, another 5. One measures 5.1 TBN and another 4.8. Two labs do water by KF and are 20 or even 100 ppm apart. Everyone of these is explainable in the laws of statistical math they are judged by. Probabilities. Repeatability. Reproducibility.  There are zero perfectly repeatable and perfectly reproducible methods of measurement. 

 

The best 'shooter' in the world can't put 2 .223 rounds in a .250 hole at 500 yards. But from labs we expect perfection. 

 

I expect direction and nothing more. Pick a lab. Graph the trend and ask, "In this ignorant CONSUMERS opinion, does that make sense?" If it does, work with it. If it doesn't, don't second guess yourself... find a new lab. You are NOT the slave of some expert. He's resource. Like a dollar bill or a glass of water.

 

I give the humble experts a bit more weight. The haughty I pitch like an unreliable report. 

 

 

 

 

[customboss]

51 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Patterns. Trends. History. Never take a single result to seriously. Expect mistakes from humans. Perfect people are hard to come by.  There have only been three in our entire history. 

 

Dad used to say, "I can do business with a liar because I know what he is. That perfect guy is trouble". 

 

There are over 8 BILLION people on this planet. I'll bet everyone of them can find some fault in me. Know why? Because I have some. Many in fact. 

 

Flawless people are nonexistent. There are only those that think so. Most of them have degrees.   

 

Science in and of itself is perfect. That's God world. Our understanding of it sometimes is flawed and we fumble around like the blind in a minefield in our attempts to measure and quantify it. Some care more than others, granted, BUT....I've seen guys send the same samples to multiple labs and get different results from every one of them. The question is, How different and does it matter? 

 

One lab measures 3 ppm iron, another 5. One measures 5.1 TBN and another 4.8. Two labs do water by KF and are 20 or even 100 ppm apart. Everyone of these is explainable in the laws of statistical math they are judged by. Probabilities. Repeatability. Reproducibility.  There are zero perfectly repeatable and perfectly reproducible methods of measurement. 

 

The best 'shooter' in the world can't put 2 .223 rounds in a .250 hole at 500 yards. But from labs we expect perfection. 

 

I expect direction and nothing more. Pick a lab. Graph the trend and ask, "In this ignorant CONSUMERS opinion, does that make sense?" If it does, work with it. If it doesn't, don't second guess yourself... find a new lab. You are NOT the slave of some expert. He's resource. Like a dollar bill or a glass of water.

 

I give the humble experts a bit more weight. The haughty I pitch like an unreliable report. 

 

 

 

 

And that my friends is why Grumpy never worked professionally in the lubricants and fuels analysis science business. 

[Black02Silverado]

8/18/2025

2019 Silverado 6.2

5k on oil

59k on Vehicle OLM at 24%

AMSOIL ASM 0w-20 8qts

EAO17 filter

Went back with ALM 5w-20 This time