OCI, not when but why?

Grumpy Bear · November 11, 2022

Short Confessional Ramble

Oil is there to protect the motor. Additives are there to protect the oil which in turn protects the motor. Even AW additives are useless until metal touches metal and the point of oil is to keep that from happening. That pretty much makes viscosity the most important feature of an oil.

Not what marketing and the EPA are saying. They focus on 'friction' for economy and fewer oil changes to protect the ecology and pollution element of chemical interactions of combustion. All are important but all are second fiddle to wear.

Chemist and Engineers will toss in heat removal and cleanliness and by this time the water is muddy......

Rinsing and repeating my marketing inclinations, even though a refiner and should have known better, worked like a charm. Until they didn't. GDI changed the way I would be forced to see how I condemn oil and some sampling not only confirmed my ignorance and arrogance but gave me the tools to learn a better way.

KARNUT · November 11, 2022

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I hear ya. Lived most of my adult life doing rinse and repeat and yea, I was good with that as well. I can't say hundreds, however.

Thing is I've seen some disturbing trends even in the arena of marketing. Bold statements that give one pause. A really long pause. My recent run-in with Dizzy poked some holes in my long-held beliefs and confirmed some fears I was pretty sure about and now have confirmation of. Catching some major players in outright lies. Watching PQIA catch MPT in a lie eroded my trust. Vague product datasheets that if held at face value removes validation of the producer's integrity. Test data that simply does not match submitted reference materials that have been verified by third party sources. Allot of lying going on and allot of market HERDING the sheepeople.

I was glued to the disaster called the Terrain or Dizzy. I’ve had the 5.7 diesel olds nightmare so I can relate to GMs disasters. I couldn’t afford to do anything other than make it work. You just wouldn’t be defeated. It’s admirable. The Oldsmobile ended up with a gas engine. I was working out of town and couldn’t keep up. So in went a gas engine in one weekend. Then I found out it had low stall converter. It took off slower than the diesel. My first attempt at rebuilding an alternator was a good one. The light came on at idle. I rebuilt it and the light stayed on all the time. Now you have the net, the money I could have saved. Dizzy takes the cake, that took patience and perseverance. I couldn’t have done it.

swathdiver · November 12, 2022

5 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I’ve had the 5.7 diesel olds nightmare so I can relate to GMs disasters.

I've fond memories of my old '82 Cutlass Supreme Brougham Diesel. Loved that car and wish I still had it. Had plans to put a 200R4 and 3.42 gears but life got in the way.

That old girl was a great bracket car at the drags, ran 21.63 in the quarter mile all night long! LOL Got 24 mpg delivering pizzas and 35 mpg on the highway.

Loved the twin plume of smoke like coming out behind her like an F-4 Phantom! LOL

Edited November 12, 2022 by swathdiver

Grumpy Bear · November 12, 2022

4 hours ago, KARNUT said:

Dizzy takes the cake, that took patience and perseverance.

Thanks, and I hope I don't waste the lessons she taught.

Elephant in the room is the cost of a UOA. I get that. It can be expensive. Way too expensive to use routinely. But lab work has it's uses where it can pay for itself. Charting the unknown is on my list of uses.

The unknown is exactly what is in a bottle of oil. Even ones you've used for years. Each new API/JASO/ACEA/ILSAC classification carries chemistry changes that are 'need to know' and it is believed you don't need to know. The economy is always putting pressure on manufactures. (Aka greed). One less olive in the jar. One less ingredient in the cake. A little less protection in the bottle.

Well, I believe I do. I don't like being herded toward an agenda that isn't in my best interest and my gut tells me than when someone with all the knowledge wants to keep me ignorant THAT isn't in my best interest.

If you're going to put less antacid in the bottle it won't' last as long even in the same service. Adds are sacrificial. They go first before the oil does. I can't get a picture without VOA TAN/TBN, UOA TAN/TBN and iron ppm wear metals. Number on the data sheet is a different test without a good correlation. Batches vary. Data sheets are 'typical' for the blend. They are not the finished batch QC report.

This variation is why I leave so much headroom in the TBN value. Yes, you can go much lower than I do BUT it will require you pay the elephant standing in the corner.

So.... I think it's a balance. Use the testing to find your sweet spot. Then trust but verify from time to time. Use the test when you suspect trouble. It's a tool, not a religion.

Grumpy Bear · November 12, 2022

Document 146 - TBN Titration Methods White Paper.pdf (atc-europe.org)

Best paper I've ever read on this topic. Published April this year too! (2022)

Few will read this paper top to bottom, but I offer it anyway for the few that will and offer some Cliff Notes for those that don't.

If you read a product data sheet and actually find a TBN result it will be from ASTM test method ASTM2896. Any lab you chose will use test method ASTM4739. The reasons vary but is what it is. Here is what you need to know about comparing the two.

You can't.

There is no direct mathematical model. Once upon a time you were pretty safe with subtracting 1.5 points from the virgin sample to compare to your use sample but the introduction of various low ash or ashless chemistries tossed a monkey wrench into that.

Between changes in ash content outright and altered ash 'swaps' and lower ACEA limits..... here just isn't the acid protection in the oil there use to be. More simply the difference between the new and used oil methods is GREATER than it was before ashless chemistries.

This has been two objectives working against each other. OEM's fighting ever lower restrictions decided to boost smaller motors to get greater thermal (aka mpg) efficiency. This led to LSPI, and the cure was less calcium as they came to understand. They started replacing calcium with magnesium which has a higher ash factor and that causes other issues. So, to combat higher ash they (ACEA) decided to lower TBN while they search for lower ash additives from other organic metalic contributors. It's a process.

You guys remember a few years ago Pepper went a full summer with every tank over 30 mpg? Big player in that was Red Line HP 0W20. This oils data sheet list the TBN as 7.9 mgKOH. I did not have a VOA ran on it but I know Red Line is using more ashless chemistries so the ASTM number will be more than 1.5 points TBN lower. I called it two which is about like playing darts blindfolded but I needed a number so 6 is is.

Grumpy Bear · November 13, 2022

The last oil I used in Pepper I did have a VOA TBN for but not from that specific batch. I expect it was closer however than my blindfold guess. 8.6 mgKOH. I ran that oil down to 4.0 mgKOH or a bit less than half and did so in 5,000 miles.

Without a TAN that is my trigger point, 50%, if everything else is good. However, in this instance I did have the TAN and an otherwise stellar report and ran it another 2,500 miles. Could I have gone farther? Maybe, but I wasn't going to spend the money to find out the exact limit of an oil I can no longer easily source.

I use some old tools that I'm comfortable with. 50% reduction in TBN from VOA ASTM4739. Doubling of the TAN from the VOA. I will not allow that TBN and TAN to cross. Lastly, I work with what I know and have a measurement for and not what I think. There are studies that show the correlations I use to wear and yes, I know these studies were done with ash bearing chemistries, but I have not, as yet, seen any such study on the SAPS chemistries. Which would take me back to my last point about working with what I know and can measure.

https://learnoilanalysis.com/

Now all that said, once run down the rabbit hole and having done the work I would have no reason to repeat that work at every OCI unless something gave me reason to suspect something had changed. I might go years without another sample if:

1.) I continued to use the same oil.

2.) Truck was in the same service.

3.) Truck kept in tune.

4.) Change in tune or operation (reason to believe contamination or part failure, coil, injector etc.)

4.) No change to the oil itself.

Point #4 isn't all that tricky.

Is there a change advertised? Or major labeling change, (name)

Has the API class changed?

Change in product data sheet information or change in MSDS (SDS).

customboss · November 13, 2022

23 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

There is no direct mathematical model. Once upon a time you were pretty safe with subtracting 1.5 points from the virgin sample to compare to your use sample but the introduction of various low ash or ashless chemistries tossed a monkey wrench into that.

Thats because TBN readings are testing for strong and weak acids in 2896. In 4739 is just strong acids. Most additives packages, base oils, have a baseline acid level that is inherent in the chemistry, not detrimental. They aren't measurable accurately with a pat mathematical rule of thumb because the variables are so variable.

For instance RLI BIOSYN base oils have a very high titration for acidity because of the nature of the HOBs baseoils.

Estolides have a very low acidity because they are synthesized to some standard for that base oil need.

Old school thought on TBN or BN was that it would neutralize all the bad acids but thats not true today in the world of high baseline or ambient acidity. Not necessarily bad acidity.

For most modern engines your harmful acidity is coming from storing NOx's in the engine oil then refining it over and over via EGR effect.

Traditional TBN will do nothing to counter that. So having a targeted BN component is more important than raw measured titration #.

You are correct Grumpy Bear to look at crossovers for your specific engine, with your specific fuels and oils in use, in your environment to see where wear and AN and BN crossover. Having said that I can show you a HOBS based oil from RLI or Amsoil with their massively effective anti oxidants that show near 0 TBN and stable acids with LOW wear.

Oil blenders using 2896 method for TBN is a sales pitch to those who think higher is better. With Mobil 1 ESP for instance the TBN might read 8 via 2896 and 6 via 4739 in clean oil but perform well from phenolic TBN boosters that won't show a high BN level.

Chevron has released a HD diesel oil that has 0.4% sulfated ash ( a bench test to show ashy deposits formation tendencies) DELO 600. Thats low enough to use in nat gas engines that have incredibly high nitration from high heat.

That add pack made by Oronite is being incorporated into their passenger car/truck engine oils.

Dexos1 Gen 2 requires less than at or lower than 1% SA. Gen 3 requires max of 0.9%. Why? GM found that SA measured ash deposits will form in high heat areas like the ring belt, piston tops, turbo bearings, valves and valve guides and will visually look the same color as the alloys but harm compression and ESPECIALLY OIL CONTROL.

NITRATION is the most important reading in our modern GM engines. Oxidation is NOT a player anymore. The base oils and additives are so good the oxidation rates are low no matter what. DESIGN fuels dilution of the engine oil I THINK was used to cool the piston charge and lower NOx emissions but store the leftover NOx that sadly will be EGR'd into the oil again and the combustion chamber as deposits if a poor quality or inappropriate oil and fuels additives are in use.

As diyer2 says most people don't care but if you have a problem baby that produces high heat you might want to use a better engine oil and best fuels you can get.

I think the folks with the 6.6L V8 are seeing oil usage for the same reason I am in my L3B 2.7 T. They are towing and producing high localized heating in the areas of engine described above. I think I am too and I will be using a engine oil from Chevron Havoline 5w30 that is GEN2 Dexos1 that I know is 0.9% SA for sure to compare the consumption over time.

API is slow on uptake here, DEXOS is faster to correct. That above mentioned DELO 600 in a 10w30 or 5w30 would be interesting to see perform but its not optimized for fuel economy and friction reduction like the Havoline Pro-RS renewable I will be testing.

Another note too, some oil makers that use very high quality base oils and additives advertise they meet and exceed DEXOS standards but if your engine eats that oil most likely it's not working that way, in my case a 2.7Turbo 4. You can make ash deposits then clean them up with the solvency of the base oils or additives. When that solvency is diluted by fuel, EGR, and heat it might provide good wear control but you are consuming a qt of oil in 4000-7000 miles needlessly.

customboss · November 13, 2022

On 11/11/2022 at 5:31 PM, swathdiver said:

I've fond memories of my old '82 Cutlass Supreme Brougham Diesel. Loved that car and wish I still had it. Had plans to put a 200R4 and 3.42 gears but life got in the way.

That old girl was a great bracket car at the drags, ran 21.63 in the quarter mile all night long! LOL Got 24 mpg delivering pizzas and 35 mpg on the highway.

Loved the twin plume of smoke like coming out behind her like an F-4 Phantom! LOL

Pulling the corporal under the head enclosure is my favorite, ambush is just like that, when you least expect it and with your pants down....LOL Thanks for sharing.

Grumpy Bear · November 14, 2022

12 hours ago, customboss said:

Thats because TBN readings are testing for strong and weak acids in 2896. In 4739 is just strong acids. Most additives packages, base oils, have a baseline acid level that is inherent in the chemistry, not detrimental. They aren't measurable accurately with a pat mathematical rule of thumb because the variables are so variable.

Pretty much what I said and what the link provided made a direct point of.

12 hours ago, customboss said:

You are correct Grumpy Bear to look at crossovers for your specific engine, with your specific fuels and oils in use,

And exactly why I resist being moved off this (RLHP) oil.

I ignorantly and mistakenly believed Estolides were polar fluids because they were derived from plant materials. While the latter is true the former is not. Fact is they are less polar than PAOs. The one reference I found from EcoSyn showed an aniline point of 138! WHAT? This shocked and disappointed me greatly. I could care less that it has greater resistance to oxidation than a PAO/POE blends AS what I run currently has more than I need. The fact that they use a vastly different low SAPS add pack that for which there are not any publicly published studies that show the acid/base/iron or fictional relationship is a flat nonstarter for me. It removes all know touchstones on nothing more than "Because I say so" support. I don't trust my doctor that far. Study it, document it and then I'll have a look.

You see for me solvency is second only to viscosity. Group III, PAO and Estolides have zero solvency. As experience has beaten into me, the knowledge that a lack of solvency only means it get dirtier slower. Detergents, as the oil industry uses the term, don't clean, they inhibit. Solvents clean. Solvents can keep ring pack areas clean even in the presents of medium ash chemistries. I have documented proof of this.

Someone starts blending a 80/20 Estolides/POE and a TBN/TAN/iron study and a friction study....then I give it a look. Until then, old school is the rule. Something I can track, something I can measure, something I know, something no one is saying 'trust me" without proof. If I can't do this, then UOA's are pointless. Give a sad face if you must. I have to understand not just blindly accept no matter how much 'expertise' is offered to dissuade me other. I've known my oils longer than I've know most humans and it's never disappointed me. Now that's sad, right there.

customboss · November 14, 2022

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Pretty much what I said and what the link provided made a direct point of.

And exactly why I resist being moved off this (RLHP) oil.

I ignorantly and mistakenly believed Estolides were polar fluids because they were derived from plant materials. While the latter is true the former is not. Fact is they are less polar than PAOs. The one reference I found from EcoSyn showed an aniline point of 138! WHAT? This shocked and disappointed me greatly. I could care less that it has greater resistance to oxidation than a PAO/POE blends AS what I run currently has more than I need. The fact that they use a vastly different low SAPS add pack that for which there are not any publicly published studies that show the acid/base/iron or fictional relationship is a flat nonstarter for me. It removes all know touchstones on nothing more than "Because I say so" support. I don't trust my doctor that far. Study it, document it and then I'll have a look.

You see for me solvency is second only to viscosity. Group III, PAO and Estolides have zero solvency. As experience has beaten into me, the knowledge that a lack of solvency only means it get dirtier slower. Detergents, as the oil industry uses the term, don't clean, they inhibit. Solvents clean. Solvents can keep ring pack areas clean even in the presents of medium ash chemistries. I have documented proof of this.

Someone starts blending a 80/20 Estolides/POE and a TBN/TAN/iron study and a friction study....then I give it a look. Until then, old school is the rule. Something I can track, something I can measure, something I know, something no one is saying 'trust me" without proof. If I can't do this, then UOA's are pointless. Give a sad face if you must. I have to understand not just blindly accept no matter how much 'expertise' is offered to dissuade me other. I've known my oils longer than I've know most humans and it's never disappointed me. Now that's sad, right there.

Firstly no one here is trying to drive your decision making. Just sharing what I know or have seen post retirement. RLHP 0w20 is a good oil but it can't deeply clean as you intimate/surmise.

Like any synthesized base oil or additive I explained A LONG TIME AGO that estolides base oils are engineer-able for specific needs.

Why many are called GRPIII inside the formulating industry. See below.

Why didn't you run RLHP in Dizzy where cleaning was needed? Before you tell us that its because Dizzy uses too much oil I submit that IF RLHP could clean that well it would solve the issue but it can't. It can keep clean.

RLHP 0w20 that your 4.3L V6 used is a street add pack oil that is 0.8% SA that is MAJORITY PAO so how does it get any solvency? A small cut of POE AND standard add pack components which are probably like Mobil 1 using low ash phenolics and amines. RLHP 70% PAO unknown level of POE. Most likely that add pack is purchased as a package not custom made for Phillips 66 which now owns RL.

Amsoil OE and XL are a lot like this chemistry without bragging about its esters and additives. Signature Series takes the gloves off and uses more SA content than I want in the L3B. It has plenty of solvency to keep clean and does it with bases and additives.

I submit RL is not solvent enough to clean deeply. Keep clean yes! In a troubled engine not enough. Why RESTORE was developed.

Your mechanical engineering chart making chops keep confusing you when it comes to chemistry and physics. By the time you get a study thats non marketing driven that tech is 20 years old! It's a reality in the business.

Not sure why you made the comment about oil analysis testing. That's your best measure of whats happening in YOUR UNIT IN NEAR REAL TIME.

Up to you to correlate what it means for YOU.

Here's the 25% of the Havoline PRO-RS 5w30 I will be receiving soon from Walmart.

https://novvi.com/products/synnova/

swathdiver · November 14, 2022

On 11/13/2022 at 11:56 AM, customboss said:

Pulling the corporal under the head enclosure is my favorite, ambush is just like that, when you least expect it and with your pants down....LOL Thanks for sharing.

I learned all of my parenting skills from that movie.

Grumpy Bear · November 22, 2022

On 11/14/2022 at 8:36 AM, customboss said:

Why didn't you run RLHP in Dizzy where cleaning was needed? Before you tell us that its because Dizzy uses too much oil I submit that IF RLHP could clean that well it would solve the issue but it can't. It can keep clean.

RLHP 0w20 that your 4.3L V6 used is a street add pack oil that is 0.8% SA that is MAJORITY PAO so how does it get any solvency?

Been off the grid nearly two weeks. Family stuff.

RLHP is about 15-18% POE. Enough to, as you say, keep it clean IF you can get it clean and enough to prevent it from getting dirty if used from the get. Enough to have a MAJOR impact on friction reduction (in the sweet spot) and thermal capacity. I've charted that (heat) silly in these forums.

Correct. Not the end all be all. Nothing is. (Although Restore came close) Cleaning Dizzy will NOT fix her oil eating. The ring/bore damage is done son. NOT an oil failure issue. A fuel-pump failure issue that went undiagnosed too long and addressed with too many 'other' distractions due to MY ignorance and lack of UOA guidance EARLY enough to have been fruitful. Viscosity break broke her. Fuel will break them ALL. Even RESTORE.

This industry is headed down a deep dark rabbit hole that is going to leave the consumer holding a bag of poo. Consumers with their heads in the sand........... What a Tee Up.

In older motors the cam/lifter wear was concern #1. Since the swing to roller cams, ring/bore wear has become #1.

Only three things will wear out a ring package prematurely. Abrasion, Corrosion or insufficient film thickness. We assume that if we use the 'correct oil' from the manual that the film thickness is a given. GDI pump issues and the industries relentless attack on the oil via heat and EGR induced nitration took that assurance away. The EPA and BIG OIL greed are removing acid fighting capabilities while the attack on the oil by these same forces is increased. A public that believes all is well in Wonder Land.... What a recipe for disaster. :nonod:

I don't care what additive package they are using or will use. ASTM4739 and ASTM D974 will tell the same story. Yes, it may be from a different starting point and perhaps a lower/higher crossing point, likely a different slope, but these tests HOLD no matter what chemistry that toss at it. Hydrogen ions are what they are. BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK by running a UAO/VOA once in a while. Ditto viscosity retention.

The more they hammer down the organic metals, the closer you have to look until at least you identify the new SLOPE. That is how fast it depletes in whatever measure you care to use.

Some things happen TO the oil and some things happen IN the oil.

Don't guess, LOOK!

Then trust THE DATA and occasionally verify.

I for one will not be surprised at all to find out that even 3K is still to long for many of the newer SP oils.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Grumpy Bear

KARNUT · November 22, 2022

45 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Been off the grid nearly two weeks. Family stuff.

RLHP is about 15-18% POE. Enough to, as you say, keep it clean IF you can get it clean and enough to prevent it from getting dirty if used from the get. Enough to have a MAJOR impact on friction reduction (in the sweet spot) and thermal capacity. I've charted that (heat) silly in these forums.

Correct. Not the end all be all. Nothing is. (Although Restore came close) Cleaning Dizzy will NOT fix her oil eating. The ring/bore damage is done son. NOT an oil failure issue. A fuel-pump failure issue that went undiagnosed too long and addressed with too many 'other' distractions due to MY ignorance and lack of UOA guidance EARLY enough to have been fruitful. Viscosity break broke her. Fuel will break them ALL. Even RESTORE.

This industry is headed down a deep dark rabbit hole that is going to leave the consumer holding a bag of poo. Consumers with their heads in the sand........... What a Tee Up.

In older motors the cam/lifter wear was concern #1. Since the swing to roller cams, ring/bore wear has become #1.

Only three things will wear out a ring package prematurely. Abrasion, Corrosion or insufficient film thickness. We assume that if we use the 'correct oil' from the manual that the film thickness is a given. GDI pump issues and the industries relentless attack on the oil via heat and EGR induced nitration took that assurance away. The EPA and BIG OIL greed are removing acid fighting capabilities while the attack on the oil by these same forces is increased. A public that believes all is well in Wonder Land.... What a recipe for disaster.

I don't care what additive package they are using or will use. ASTM4739 and ASTM D974 will tell the same story. Yes, it may be from a different starting point and perhaps a lower/higher crossing point, likely a different slope, but these tests HOLD no matter what chemistry that toss at it. Hydrogen ions are what they are. BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK by running a UAO/VOA once in a while. Ditto viscosity retention.

The more they hammer down the organic metals, the closer you have to look until at least you identify the new SLOPE. That is how fast it depletes in whatever measure you care to use.

Some things happen TO the oil and some things happen IN the oil.

Don't guess, LOOK!

Then trust THE DATA and occasionally verify.

I for one will not be surprised at all to find out that even 3K is still to long for many of the newer SP oils.

I’m not being contrary. Maybe I missed something. Dizzy never got fixed? Is the conclusion that just adding oil after the initial damage was done. Would have been enough to make it last to the present mileage? What OCI would have overridden the bad design? If non. What would have been the life of the engine? Remember it’s been stated that 1000 miles per qt is normal. Normal mileage is still 15K miles a year. So 150K miles is 10 years. Most people move on from their daily by then. So how would you break it down under those parameters? What would be the recommendation for the average driver with a budget? Most people don’t change their own oil.

diyer2 · November 23, 2022

I applaud Grumpy for his determination to fix this vehicle, I would have replaced it a long time ago.

KARNUT · November 23, 2022

13 minutes ago, diyer2 said:

I applaud Grumpy for his determination to fix this vehicle, I would have replaced it a long time ago.

It depends. If it’s my wife’s go to town car, she likes to keep them. I’d just add oil and go. She’s never more than 9 miles away. Same with my go to town avalanche. My trip vehicles are usually on a short leash. First sign of trouble, gone. Standing on the side of the interstate. Not my idea of retirement activities.