Another oil thread

[diyer2]

IMO

Any oil will perform fine on 3 K mile oil changes. I have done this for years.

Longer OCI's require better oil and a better filter. Such as using dino, standard oil, semi synthetic, full synthetic or 100% synthetic. If the OCI is adjusted to the quality of the products used I see no problem. 

You have people doing 3 K mile OCI's and 25 K mile OCI's with various product's. 

Are they all doing the right thing? Yes, because there aren't a lot of engine failures. 

 

I like to keep things simple. Changing my oil more frequently is a simple remedy to motor longevity. I don't need UOA's. Not trying to squeeze every mile out of my oil. Don't care about saving a few bucks. Not lazy so changing oil isn't an issue.

 

YMMV

[KARNUT]

The way prices are skyrocketing these days. The average Toyota, Honda, VW buyer who takes their ride to the dealership for oil changes. Will probably looking at the 60$ oil change go with their recommendations. Rather than halving that because you’ll never make 300K miles if you don’t. Most of the vehicles I see are 5 years old or newer. Most people have a target payment as long as they stay in that arena there’re driving newer. Extra oil changes for longevity doesn’t even cross their mind. Or make sense. 

[customboss]

On 7/26/2021 at 9:24 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

Quick question! 

 

If your motor starts using oil because the rings have collapsed varnished, coked, stuck...

 

Why? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From a 45 year mostly INDEPENDENT testing career most of the time it's not the oils fault if its an appropriate chemistry for the application.

 

Assuming no internal engine design issues ; the main answer for that question is lack of ideal tune, i.e. fuels dilution of the engine oil, sucking dust into the oil volume or past rings, valves,  via air intake or breather leak, overheating for any reason.  

 

If you blindly change your engine oil every 1000,2000,3000 miles you might miss these problems. Engine oil will not protect against dust and overheating, it might help slow fuels dilution of the engine oil but the fuels residuals and additives attack and deposit on engine components regardless of strength or freshness of that oil volume over time. 

 

Depending on MIL codes to set, OLM timers of any source are too late to make a difference normally. 

 

All that said sure changing oil often helps but why drive a newer car or truck and get less MPG and make deposits when you can keep the engine in tune and not stress even the emissions controls so they work for the life or service of the unit?  

 

As I read here  more than a few posters complaining about increasing fuel and lubricant prices but they don't keep their engine in optimum tune and frankly could mitigate that increase in prices by doing so. 

 

The COMBUSTION DYNAMIC of any IC engine is the key to stressing everything else about that engine. 

 

Engine oil analysis for me is not about watching what happened but predicting and correcting what is about to happen, thus correcting everything above so I get long life out of the engine and the lubricant, better MPG , improved performance, dependability and lower operating costs from not self induced damage. 

 

Most don't care and I get that. But changing your oil more often doesn't necessarily save your unit. 

 

I had oil analysis customers use our service over the years that lease and I asked why they did it, the answer was my fuel bill is less. So for a fleet thats a big deal but for mom and pop business that has 2 or 3 units it matters too. 

 

Just my experience, not selling anyone or trying to convince anyone. 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

5 hours ago, customboss said:

 

 

1.) If you blindly change your engine oil every 1000,2000,3000 miles you might miss these problems. Engine oil will not protect against dust and overheating, it might help slow fuels dilution of the engine oil but the fuels residuals and additives attack and deposit on engine components regardless of strength or freshness of that oil volume over time. 

 

2.) Engine oil analysis for me is not about watching what happened but predicting and correcting what is about to happen, thus correcting everything above so I get long life out of the engine and the lubricant, better MPG , improved performance, dependability and lower operating costs from not self induced damage. 

 

 

 

 

1.) I've never seen a motor damaged by to many oil changes but I have seen million mile motors with crude carburetors and points using 50 year old plus oil technology whose sole defense was frequent oil/filter changes.  Fuel additives don't hide from the crankcase oil and ARE diluted and in solution or suspension and removed by changes. That statement would be otherwise true regardless of OCI length. So this hinges on UOA's 'finding' issues in a predictive manor. There are lots of things that 'could' happen. But what wont happen is a failure when the operator is paying attention. Air filter for example. Could that be picked up in a UOA? Yes! But so will frequent services and replacements. I get people don't like spending money and often take refuge in 'false economies' trying to save the price of a part or service by not doing it. I would also expect that the kind of fellow that likes to do UOA's frequently is also a guy who keeps his head in the game. Just say'n.  

 

 

2.) Now if we just had an oil analysis service that did "Predictive" analysis! 

 

 

[customboss]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

1.) I've never seen a motor damaged by to many oil changes but I have seen million mile motors with crude carburetors and points using 50 year old plus oil technology whose sole defense was frequent oil/filter changes.  Fuel additives don't hide from the crankcase oil and ARE diluted and in solution or suspension and removed by changes. That statement would be otherwise true regardless of OCI length. So this hinges on UOA's 'finding' issues in a predictive manor. There are lots of things that 'could' happen. But what wont happen is a failure when the operator is paying attention. Air filter for example. Could that be picked up in a UOA? Yes! But so will frequent services and replacements. I get people don't like spending money and often take refuge in 'false economies' trying to save the price of a part or service by not doing it. I would also expect that the kind of fellow that likes to do UOA's frequently is also a guy who keeps his head in the game. Just say'n.  

 

 

2.) Now if we just had an oil analysis service that did "Predictive" analysis! 

 

 

Brother Grump absolutely it's a balance!! 

 

1) Carbureted engines ended for GM trucks in the 1986 454 SS I think?  Points? oh my late 70's?  Fuel chemistries then to those engines were safer, more solvent, and more compatible with engine oils and barely after-treated and emissions. Engine oils then were terrible mostly and PCV engines showed that in spades as they deposited the VI improvers making deposits in that vent plumbing so changing oil early most likely helped that.  So changing out that oil in those engines frequently was smart. 

 

In the past 30+ years engine oils got better while fuels quality ( for the engine designs)  retreated the other direction.

 

All while OEM's had to add performance improvements that stressed that crappy fuel. The fuel additives of choice were cheap polymeric to try to clean the poorly refined fuels that barely met regional EPA requirements.

 

Like the older early engine oil VI improvers (among other additives) the polymeric fuel additives of today become their own deposit formers and not necessarily on oil side.

 

Cam phasers, DI injectors, newer solenoid driven PCV venting, VVT, cylinder deactivation, valve deposits, EGR now driven by valve action, and on and on, the engine oil will not solve or touch all these deposit areas but vented partially burned fuel additives will. 

 

Add in higher temps for top of engine and all that stuff its a perfect varnish and shellac forming mess that the oil never touches. 

 

2) OK I confess I did! You took advantage of that service, however I am retired now.  I have been warming up to finding  a buyer for my IP and domain name that I can trust to take that capability on in earnest. 

 

BTW be careful what you read at BITOG unless you can verify it. After working with THE Bob there I departed because of the BS marketing there. 

 

All to say change the oil, tune the car, run the fuel hand in glove! How can a person determine that, confirm your choices instead of guessing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

12 hours ago, customboss said:

Brother Grump absolutely it's a balance!! 

 

Like the older early engine oil VI improvers (among other additives) the polymeric fuel additives of today become their own deposit formers and not necessarily on oil side.

 

BTW be careful what you read at BITOG unless you can verify it. After working with THE Bob there I departed because of the BS marketing there. 

 

All to say change the oil, tune the car, run the fuel hand in glove! How can a person determine that, confirm your choices instead of guessing. 

 

Ah....I did not see the distinction highlighted above in the first post. Now pointed out in the second and rereading the first I see the error is mine. Now that clarified I wholeheartedly agree. Oil can not help on the non oil side. 

 

Not to worry about me and the THE Bob or 540 RAT or some other blogger or YouTuber. I try to keep most reading to SAE and published Doctoral peer reviewed sources. I do however find some individual poster who is a ex engineer, chemist or something or other who occasionally drops a crumb of truth that the dogs under the Masters table can nourish their information hunger with. 

 

 

Yes yes, the trifecta.

OCI, Tune, Fuel

A nail struck square

 

BTW, can't wait to follow your build thread when your new truck arrives. Already on the edge of my seat fork and knife in hand. Cheers!!

[customboss]

Brother Grump, if its not practical for the owner, maintainer, operator what good is the science! 

 

I am learning how to post things here and will share my build if I can. The Trail Boss 2.7 T is supposed to be here this week!  Yeehaa. I will share good solid oil analysis data and try to interpret it for the readers here too. 

 

I am going to share some chemistries few here have mentioned but is being incorporated in off the shelf oils but the blenders and marketers are not disclosing. More later, off to the VA to get me tuned up! LOL 

[Grumpy Bear]

On 11/15/2021 at 10:07 AM, customboss said:

I am going to share some chemistries few here have mentioned but is being incorporated in off the shelf oils but the blenders and marketers are not disclosing. More later, off to the VA to get me tuned up! LOL 

 

Got my attention.  

[Grumpy Bear]

FYI

 

https://www.sclubricants.com/virgin-recycled-re-refined-oil/

 

Green Earth Technologies G Oil, Safety-Kleen EcoPower and Valvoline NextGen. Know what your getting 

 

Watch for this quote:

 

Because re-refined oil goes through the same refining and distillation process as the crude oil that later becomes virgin, it can be as high of quality if not higher than virgin.

 

They just couldn't leave it at "equal to" 

This sort of thing is the reason I hate marketing.

[customboss]

9 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

FYI

 

https://www.sclubricants.com/virgin-recycled-re-refined-oil/

 

Green Earth Technologies G Oil, Safety-Kleen EcoPower and Valvoline NextGen. Know what your getting 

 

Watch for this quote:

 

Because re-refined oil goes through the same refining and distillation process as the crude oil that later becomes virgin, it can be as high of quality if not higher than virgin.

 

They just couldn't leave it at "equal to" 

This sort of thing is the reason I hate marketing.

Most of the reason for rerefined lubricants being higher quality is that the used oil feedsource is mostly synthetic since hydrocracking became commonplace and GRP III is very common now.  

 

NextGen from Valvoline was really solid in testing and I think I have a EcoPower test I can share from years ago.  G-Oil was a animal oils sham that could not make it without conventional additives since they tried to use animal based tallow as the primary additive! 

 

 

 

 

EO9428-1 ECOPOWER 5w30 SM GF4.pdf

[Grumpy Bear]

41 minutes ago, customboss said:

Most of the reason for rerefined lubricants being higher quality is that the used oil feedsource is mostly synthetic since hydrocracking became commonplace and GRP III is very common now.  

 

NextGen from Valvoline was really solid in testing and I think I have a EcoPower test I can share from years ago.  G-Oil was a animal oils sham that could not make it without conventional additives since they tried to use animal based tallow as the primary additive! 

 

 

 

 

EO9428-1 ECOPOWER 5w30 SM GF4.pdf 134.12 kB · 1 download

Took me a few minutes to figure that out. Re-refined is hydrotreated (Group II-II+) but not hydrocracked (Group III-III+). [per the information on in initial link]. So because the raw materials already contain hydrocracked fractions, Group III's, they can exceed the benchmark for re-refined, Group II oils. Okay that makes sense but it's still marketing sneaky. 

 

I'm starting to see the usefulness of these IOM reports. Thanks for sharing it. 

[customboss]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Took me a few minutes to figure that out. Re-refined is hydrotreated (Group II-II+) but not hydrocracked (Group III-III+). [per the information on in initial link]. So because the raw materials already contain hydrocracked fractions, Group III's, they can exceed the benchmark for re-refined, Group II oils. Okay that makes sense but it's still marketing sneaky. 

 

I'm starting to see the usefulness of these IOM reports. Thanks for sharing it. 

There's less PAO and GRP IV and V but its out there getting into the used oil feedstock. I love that you and others here get this stuff. Its refreshing!!!   THANKS

[txab]

2 hours ago, customboss said:

Most of the reason for rerefined lubricants being higher quality is that the used oil feedsource is mostly synthetic since hydrocracking became commonplace and GRP III is very common now.  

 

NextGen from Valvoline was really solid in testing and I think I have a EcoPower test I can share from years ago.  G-Oil was a animal oils sham that could not make it without conventional additives since they tried to use animal based tallow as the primary additive! 

 

 

 

 

EO9428-1 ECOPOWER 5w30 SM GF4.pdf 134.12 kB · 3 downloads

I was pleased with NextGen. I ran it in a 2001 Buick V-6 with >100k on it. That engine loved it. Tested it twice after switching. Excellent reports. Ran it for 4 years or so, until I got rid of the car 6 years ago. At the time you get it pretty cheap with rebates from Advanced Auto. Plus at that time you could apply their coupons to the orders too

[Grumpy Bear]

More thoughts on OCI lengths

 

An example: Here's a motor with 2,211 miles on this OCI and it is toast! Reason? Fuel dilution. 

 

A 5W30 that in a short time has been diluted to a *W20 and in a shorter time will become a 10W.

 

Point is almost everything has a 'saturation limit' and that is not defined by hours or gallons of fuel or miles nor can it be calculated by the OLM. 

 

Note the wear metals in this sample. Non-existent but it won't stay that way IF I let it go to the OLM 7.5K marker with nothing but add oil. Even 3K was to long as was 2.5K. 

 

There are maximums. There are minimums. There are saturation limits. Not all hard targets. It isn't one size fits all on everything. I have ideas on some but others need a real expert to sort and I love the 'red flag' indicators. I also like the idea a real expert can look at the data and tell you what a thing is not. Tell you if it is a single issue or multiple. Are they related? 

 

Is 2K a reasonable OCI?

Until this gets sorted it is.

UOA testing is more than wear metals and bragging rights over additive levels. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

On 11/14/2021 at 1:04 PM, customboss said:

Engine oil analysis for me is not about watching what happened but predicting and correcting what is about to happen, thus correcting everything above so I get long life out of the engine and the lubricant, better MPG , improved performance, dependability and lower operating costs from not self induced damage. 

 

I did not fully appreciate the insight of this paragraph until recently. I do not mind one bit having my course corrected. 

 

Now that I see it, I see it plainly and think.....

(That's me on your left)

 

I've been reading the API test sequences for SN, SN+ and SP oils and I was looking for the differences and saw something quite other.

 

Detergents in oils do NOT keep your motor clean...Nor will they clean a dirty motor. They slow the rate at which it gets dirty. BUT only for as long as they are in play. That is, not depleted or 'stressed' out. 

 

Excess fuel, moisture, glycol and/or any other contaminate does just that. Stresses the oil past it's chemistry, design. 

 

My first UOA on Dizzy showed I could hold wear in check with enough 'chemistry' and I could hold short term usage at bay with very rapid OCI"S, but it did not solve the usage issues or slow the degradation rate which left unchecked would do exactly what it did. Stick rings, sludge and varnished components, until I could no longer MASK it. 

 

This would have showed up in a UOA a long time before the rings collapsed. I saw signs in the moisture in the cap and steady loss of oil control and yet......

 

Scary part;

 

It never set off an MIL. 

 

A weak coil/plug. An ineffective breather system. Sticking cam phasers. Stuck rings. Fouled rocker box and pan and it NEVER set off an MIL. But showed up like a forest on fire in my first UAO. 

 

I recently saw a before and after of GM"s guidelines on PERMISSIBLE rocker cover sludge and was appalled. Their views on permissible oil consumption are ridiculous. Misfire rate to trip an MIL/CEL are worse than carburetor/points days.