OCI, not when but why?

[KARNUT]

32 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

Copied from the Hyundai forum I belong to. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just change the oil, following the severe schedule  doesn't hurt.

 

I always wonder how many of these engines have been driven in stop and go traffic, high temperatures, high speeds and hard acceleration, all while using Bob's Bulk oil at 10K OCI. I have owned 12 different model Hyundai since 2002 and run over 140K miles in a 2006 Elantra before it got totaled. Hyundai filters in all of them, Castrol GTX until Valvoline Advanced Full Synthetic came out, and oil changes intervals that never went over 5K miles or six months. Not a one of them had an engine problem. Even the 2015 Sonata with the "infamous" 2.4L at 70K miles used no oil, ran like a top, and its only repair was to change the valve cover gasket. When that was done, tech asked what oil I used and how often because the valve train and cams looked like new.

People who have been on these forums for a while know my motto: "Oil is cheap. Engines are not." Don't abuse the engine by servicing it on the Normal schedule when you flog it in traffic every day.

I’ve had 4 the 05 Elantra GT is still going. With the 11 Genesis the severe schedule is 3700 miles. That’s on a blend. Recently I switched to full synthetic and raised to 5K oil changes. For at least 5 years maybe longer it rattles like crazy cold start up. I go out to the garage with the wife for start up. Just in case it doesn’t quit rattling. The car looks and drives like new. It will get a new engine if needed. Unless I find a low mileage twin. Last Sunday it was pouring rain after church. So Monday I took it for gas and car wash. It’s been awhile so I flogged it unmercifully coming back. Turned off TC shifted myself bouncing off cut off. It hasn’t lost a step. And it didn’t blow up. Don’t tell my wife.

[Grumpy Bear]

Boutique Myth

 

Most boutique oils come with some claim of insanely long OCI's. One even claims you never have to change oil again. Those claims often an extension of the OEM's fairytale and misleading OCI lengths, so it follows that to promote ones worth we must deal in some "One upmanship". 

 

If you are dealing with a gullible public than anything is possible. If your dealing with one a bit more attune you can still get away with nearly anything with the right benchmarks firmly indoctrinated into their gray matter. All it takes is a few well placed marketing phrases nicely graphed out to look like the results of actual studies and claims unhinged from points of reference. 

 

But the truth is more subtle. NO oil last as long as one is lead to believe and the improvements between base oil classes are measured in a dozen or two of degrees, NOT hundreds. Differences in OCI's in a thousand or two and not is doubling or tripling or extinction of need. The OEM change limits are based on "perfection' and most reputable (are there any?) have two schedules. Perfect and severe and severe is anything not driving on a dyno on a roof top in a Mobil lab.

 

Forget for a minute the impact viscosity has on wear abatement. Wear is also a function of cleanliness and add pack level active retention. This has been studied to death and has been for decades to the exact same conclusion. There is a cause and effect relationship between the TBH/TAN relationship and wear.

 

The only thing that has changed is the point on that curve some regulator or bean counting counter engineering individual has decided is 'What you deserve'.  They don't improve the product to get a better result at a longer interval. They move it to the right in spite of reality. 

 

When placed in perspective many boutiques are light years ahead of shelf oils but without stating that shelf oils have a very short operational life then any claim possible is possible. Short lives of shelf oils are evident when actual lab generated values for condemnation levels are observed instead of fanciful wishing and misstated conclusions from actual science. Quick example then:

 

When is the last time you saw a routine cleanliness test on a UOA? And in the rare case you see one showing condemnation levels have been reached you will also get huge pushback on the accuracy and validity of the test method no matter which one is in play. Hey....it's an ASTM verified method in use. Challenging the method is exactly the same as challenging 2+2=4. 

 

In this rant I have set no values...give that some note.  

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

34 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

When is the last time you saw a routine cleanliness test on a UOA?

Generally speaking every oil analysis one can purchase from a given lab. 
Particle counting is not a cleanliness test. 
PQ Particle Quantifier is a count of ferritic wear. 
So wear readings can give direct correlation to cleanliness. 
Having training and skill to interpret the whole data set give great cleanliness correlation. 
 

Again your rants are illogical and ignorant relating to analysis that correlates to reality the unit is seeing. 
 

 

[diyer2]

Just another Grumpy chapter to prove his genius to himself, because nobody else cares.

Short story, shorter OCI's solves many problems which I have preached all along. Oil is cheap.

 

[Grumpy Bear]

Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom

 

 

You are looking down the tracks and off in the distance you hear a rumble and a horn. You know that sound. Shortly, as far as you can see, a light appears and the form of the engine become evident. You realize it is a train

 

That's Knowledge

 

As it bears down on you, you realize that if you stay where you are you are going to get struck by it. Likely die.

 

That's Understanding

 

If you decide it's time to step off the tracks and actually move out of it's path to prevent being killed...

 

That's Wisdom

 

A lot of people that drive posses no knowledge of oil maintenance. I write to help them acquire that knowledge. 

 

A good deal more people have some knowledge but lack understanding and they fall into two classes; students and the willfully ignorant. Students learn. Willfully ignorant people laugh and disrupt. Every class room has a few. They think they have a handle on something they do not and of course they see themselves as wise and in a position to mock.

 

And even a few more have Knowledge and Understanding and should be themselves teachers, and yet refuse wisdom for profit. They always see the cost of greater value than the prize. Themselves as more important than the lessons and students. They make it hard for true students to learn and that friends is selfish. 

 

It takes allot of volume to cut the noise of distractions and volume I'm good with.

 

There is also this. An instructor knows that not every real student learns the same way and so he presents the same information is as many forms and formats as it takes for the body to acquire all of the mentioned attributes of learning. He also knows that knowledge isn't stagnate and that as an instructor he learns the most and as he does the lesson plan changes to reflect that better understanding or reflect a better presentation. 

 

When disruptors stick around after voicing their complaint, their point isn't honest or useful.

Just selfish.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[Atlas]

Perhaps there aren't enough activities at the Senior Center to keep someone busy these days.

 

And yet, the majority of automobiles trudge onward with non-boutique oil, which only gets changed after a warning on the dashboard pops, and a few forgetful cycles of "I should get the oil changed in the next week or two". How do they ever manage?

 

Not my cars, but, most cars.

[customboss]

 

[customboss]

On 7/21/2025 at 7:57 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

A lot of people that drive posses no knowledge of oil maintenance. I write to help them acquire that knowledge.

Keep it real. Founded on facts. 

[Grumpy Bear]

I've noticed this inescapable urge of humans to be 'right' even when they are wrong, especially when wrong, and of the depths to which they will go to prove themselves so. There is no amount of volume possible that will cut through a contemptuous heart. That would require respect for truth. 

 

I've noticed we no longer need proof when we can hurl accusation to the same affect. And what is that? To get people to believe  _______.

 

It's possible to distain laws of men and be righteous. Sometimes we make silly laws. But distain for natural law....that's the very definition of stupid. Think I'll stand in front of a speeding train to prove F=ma as incorrect.  Or just say Newton is an idiot and you can get the masses to believe that too. 

 

Hersey is wrong. Stribeck and idiot. 

 

You can escape the truth but not it's consequences

 

Gravity is older than Newton. Old as matter, and it won't change just because it's old. It will never be irrelevant. Chemistry will not make Hersey/Stribeck irrelevant either. 

Edited August 15, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

19 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

've noticed this inescapable urge of humans to be 'right' even when they are wrong, especially when wrong, and of the depths to which they will go to prove themselves so. There is no amount of volume possible that will cut through a contemptuous heart. That would require respect for truth. 

Pot meet Kettle. Arguing about being black. 

[jwhjr]

11 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I've noticed this inescapable urge of humans to be 'right' even when they are wrong, especially when wrong, and of the depths to which they will go to prove themselves so. There is no amount of volume possible that will cut through a contemptuous heart. That would require respect for truth. 

 

I've noticed we no longer need proof when we can hurl accusation to the same affect. And what is that? To get people to believe  _______.

 

It's possible to distain laws of men and be righteous. Sometimes we make silly laws. But distain for natural law....that's the very definition of stupid. Think I'll stand in front of a speeding train to prove F=ma as incorrect.  Or just say Newton is an idiot and you can get the masses to believe that too. 

 

Hersey is wrong. Stribeck and idiot. 

 

You can escape the truth but not it's consequences

 

Gravity is older than Newton. Old as matter, and it won't change just because it's old. It will never be irrelevant. Chemistry will not make Hersey/Stribeck irrelevant either. 

Now lemme tell ya somethin’,  I don’t care what that there Newton feller says, I been fightin’ gravity my whole life and I’m still standin’. Dropped a hammer once, it floated… swear on my cousin’s airboat. Physics? Ain’t never met him, but he sounds uppity. And chemistry? Shoot, I been mixin’ bleach ‘n gasoline since I was knee-high, and look at me, still got most my eyebrows. Folks keep sayin’ “you need proof,” but I say if you holler loud enough, proof’ll come find you.

[Grumpy Bear]

 https://www.skf.com/us/products/rolling-bearings/principles-of-rolling-bearing-selection/bearing-selection-process/bearing-size/size-selection-based-on-rating-life/lubrication-condition-the-viscosity-ratio-k

 

I expect SKF relying on Hersey makes them (SKF) unreliable orators as well.   If you think this post has little to do with ICE's then your understanding of 'elements' is lacking and you can't be helped.

 

Kind of what PROOF looks like. 

 

Saying something is true doesn't make it so. 

 

K factor and knowing that the value is chosen for up and running in a normalized state and formulating to handle it AND the absence of that state while in transition and THEN attempting to make the argument that transitional regimes are the majority is a two legged stool you rest your belief on. EP and AW are for the aberrational condition. Not the basis for lubrication. 

 

A main bearing is a rolling element. A roller rocker on a cam lobe is a rolling element bearing. Cam bearings. Pump shafts and so on. Even a flat tappet cam is an element of a very large radius running on another with a tapper. Tapered roller. 

 

One element or thirty, diameter of a millimeter or nearly infinite radius, the principles of lubrication remain no matter how many ignorantly laughing emoji's one might post. 

 

I expect at least one detractor will consider himself wiser than those who design and teach this science. Blah, blah, blah...

 

So ignore me and ignore those opposing me. Look at the EVEDENCE the PROOFS. What your children are being taught at University. Or not..... Keep right on believing OEM's are looking out for YOU. 

 

I just read one manual that states "Failure to have the Oil Condition MONITOR reset when changing fluid WILL RESULT in damage not covered by warranty. Yea...looking out for me. Should have blow up thirty times already. But gearboxes are considered by many to be "black boxes" of mystery. It would be like saying failure to reset you OLM will blow up your motor. Same company's handbook states normal CVT operating temperature is between 120 and 175 F and then fit the unit with a fluid HEATER who's source of heat is cooling water with a regulated temperature of 192 F and feed from the hot tank making it impossible in anything but artic conditions to run cooler than 205 F. Lots of experts say allot of things. Most of them are not true but they are PROFITABLE. Go ahead, roll those eyes and tag those post. 

Edited August 15, 2025 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

19 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I expect SKF relying on Hersey makes them (SKF) unreliable orators as well

Whoever stated they ignore the Hersey #? 
You arguing inside your head again ( for all of us to witness?). 
You off your meds again? 

[customboss]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 https://www.skf.com/us/products/rolling-bearings/principles-of-rolling-bearing-selection/bearing-selection-process/bearing-size/size-selection-based-on-rating-life/lubrication-condition-the-viscosity-ratio-k

 

I expect SKF relying on Hersey makes them (SKF) unreliable orators as well.   If you think this post has little to do with ICE's then your understanding of 'elements' is lacking and you can't be helped.

 

Kind of what PROOF looks like. 

 

Saying something is true doesn't make it so. 

 

K factor and knowing that the value is chosen for up and running in a normalized state and formulating to handle it AND the absence of that state while in transition and THEN attempting to make the argument that transitional regimes are the majority is a two legged stool you rest your belief on. EP and AW are for the aberrational condition. Not the basis for lubrication. 

 

A main bearing is a rolling element. A roller rocker on a cam lobe is a rolling element bearing. Cam bearings. Pump shafts and so on. Even a flat tappet cam is an element of a very large radius running on another with a tapper. Tapered roller. 

 

One element or thirty, diameter of a millimeter or nearly infinite radius, the principles of lubrication remain no matter how many ignorantly laughing emoji's one might post. 

 

I expect at least one detractor will consider himself wiser than those who design and teach this science. Blah, blah, blah...

 

So ignore me and ignore those opposing me. Look at the EVEDENCE the PROOFS. What your children are being taught at University. Or not..... Keep right on believing OEM's are looking out for YOU. 

 

I just read one manual that states "Failure to have the Oil Condition MONITOR reset when changing fluid WILL RESULT in damage not covered by warranty. Yea...looking out for me. Should have blow up thirty times already. But gearboxes are considered by many to be "black boxes" of mystery. It would be like saying failure to reset you OLM will blow up your motor. Same company's handbook states normal CVT operating temperature is between 120 and 175 F and then fit the unit with a fluid HEATER who's source of heat is cooling water with a regulated temperature of 192 F and feed from the hot tank making it impossible in anything but artic conditions to run cooler than 205 F. Lots of experts say allot of things. Most of them are not true but they are PROFITABLE. Go ahead, roll those eyes and tag those post. 

What’s your CVT temps running? Explain to us how CVT operates and when regime of  WORST WEAR IS SEEN? 
You seem to think that IGNORING your OWN dismissing of REAL ENGINEERS design efforts. Then claiming you know better. Hmmmmmm?   

Edited August 15, 2025 by customboss

[Grumpy Bear]

• [Quotes from the link]

 

• The higher the κ value, the better the lubrication condition of the bearing and its expected rated life. This must be judged against the possible friction increase because of the higher oil viscosity. 

 

• κ > 4 (i.e. better than full film lubrication) will not further increase the rating of the bearing. However, κ > 4 may be useful in applications where the bearing temperature rise is small and additional lubrication condition reliability is desirable. This would apply, for example, to bearing applications with frequent start-stop running conditions or occasional temperature variations.

So basically what I've been saying. More than you need only hurts economy, not reliability. One of those 'additional lubrication condition reliably" situations is when using cheap VM's. 

 

An additional note: 

 

• EP/AW additives containing sulphur-­phosphorus can reduce bearing life. Generally, SKF recommends testing chemical reactivity of EP/AW for operating temperatures above 80 °C (175 °F).

Not in doses used in PCMO's of any era.