OCI, not when but why?

Grumpy Bear · June 16

So.....everything but the topic. :rolleyes:

Grumpy Bear · June 16

Engine Wear and ISO 4406

1.) Cold Starts.

2.) High Particle Count.

3.) Low operating temperature viscosity and high low temperature cranking viscosity.

4.) Depleted AW, Friction and Acid packages.

5.) High engine load.

https://me.caltexlubricants.com/en_me/home/learning/from-chevron/heavy-duty-diesel-vehicles-and-equipment/The-Importance-of-Clean-Engine-Oil-and-Its-Impact-on-Equipment-and-Business-Performance.html

High particle counts have five sources.

1.) They are manufactured within the engine. Both wear debris and amalgamation of degradation products and combustion driven soot (worse in GDI).

2.) They are ingested via intake air. Ever hear the best oil filter is a good air filter?

3.) They are entrained in the fuel.

4.) This one is insidious. They are introduced in 'fresh oil'.

5.) They are introduced during the oil change.

ISO 4406 is the test that measures and quantifies the combine effects of all of the above particle related issues. You can mitigate your way into multiples of engine life by being attentive to them all.

https://www.hyprofiltration.com/blog/is-new-oil-clean

(from the link above)

[Quote] What Is the Recommended ISO 4406 Cleanliness Code for New Oil?

A good upper limit for new oil cleanliness is 16/14/11 (ISO 4406). Typical new oil usually has ISO codes of 19/17/15 or worse, which is far too dirty for sensitive components. This can be a major cause of degradation and premature failure. [Close quote].

Source of graph: Machinery Lubrication (GM Study)

KARNUT · June 16

7 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

So.....everything but the topic.

That’s pretty tough Grumpy. I reread the previous few posts. They all reference oil changes. Much like your last thread. In my humble opinion it keeps things interesting.

Chuck FB · June 16

I had skimmed through that article when you posted the link and honestly I felt rather defeated in a sense and realized that all these years in changing oil that in fact putting in what I was told was a good quality oil was probably not filtered as well as it should be although the filter put on the engine would be what ( as long as it never went into bypass mode ) would be the final filtering of the new oil that the engine components would first see, but then the filtering media itself is not up to par to what is ideal because a full flow filter would be too restrictive to filter fine enough for the engines best outcome in the long run. Only one of our tractors over the years which was a Versatile with a 855 Cummins had a separate bypass filter, some engine manufacturers did spec a partial bypass system within the main oil filter but I don't believe any other trucks or equipment I was servicing used such a filter. No doubt a product like the Amsoil bypass system is of benefit as long as nothing goes sideways with the extra plumbing and filter such as a rupture/leak that could cause the oil to pump out of the engine ( yes that Versatile had a remote canister with hoses routed to it as well ). With the idiot egr system on a diesel and as a result forcing a lot more soot into the oil, that certainly isn't helping the diesel engines cause or as you pointed out the GDI engine issue with creating more soot and aside from having a fancy secondary filtering system, changing the oil more often helping lower the total soot load.

So oil manufacturing and the end product is not something one can control and I wonder if there are specs on what various oil packaging companies produce in particle count or size. As to the filtering, if the OEM is not designing a filter size and spec that is really what it could be, they too are short changing the end user and so what is the answer. Of course as you say the oil side can only do so much if the air side isn't keeping up its end of the picture and air filters are only so efficient and if in a dusty environment such as farm or construction or driving gravel roads there is a lot of dirt to filter out and some of that ends up into the air stream.

Of course the irony in places like where I am where they dump the salt on the highways but also will mix in some calcium or outright pure calcium for problem road area's, or using calcium as dust control on gravel roads, the vehicle that gets used in that environment may rust out before a properly engineered engine and maintenance finally wears out so one has to face that reality in the rust belt.

Grumpy Bear · June 16

1 hour ago, Chuck FB said:

I had skimmed through that article when you posted the link and honestly I felt rather defeated in a sense......

I understand. It is disturbing to think a manufacture asks so much and gives so little in engineering support. This is not a GM issues, this is a greed issue and one the ALL practice.

My intent was not to remove the wind from anyone's sail but rather to point out the areas deficient so that they can be discussed with improvements the goal. But to do that you have to know the truth and what that truth is.

The commercial interest are honed in on a few select issues in which they control all the variables and are not forthcoming in the least with their customers about the details. Failure is the only thing that drives these people to improvement. One way not to fail it to manage public "expectations". The set a bar they can clear and put their thumbs under the suspenders with chest puffed.... Only the internal data tells the story fully. As we don't have access to that for decades then we have to generate it ourselves. UOA's with data that matters.

Chuck FB · June 16

35 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I understand. It is disturbing to think a manufacture asks so much and gives so little in engineering support. This is not a GM issues, this is a greed issue and one the ALL practice.

My intent was not to remove the wind from anyone's sail but rather to point out the areas deficient so that they can be discussed with improvements the goal. But to do that you have to know the truth and what that truth is.

The commercial interest are honed in on a few select issues in which they control all the variables and are not forthcoming in the least with their customers about the details. Failure is the only thing that drives these people to improvement. One way not to fail it to manage public "expectations". The set a bar they can clear and put their thumbs under the suspenders with chest puffed.... Only the internal data tells the story fully. As we don't have access to that for decades then we have to generate it ourselves. UOA's with data that matters.

I hear you, its just not something one would even think of that the new oil in the container isn't filtered to a spec one would expect it to be.

As to a passenger vehicle theme and the maintenance requirement to meet to ensure a warranty is honored, these days with claims of life time transmission fluid on some models and the limited amount of oil changes that would bring one to the end of the factory warranty, that sells vehicles for those that like to hear "easy care maintenance free", but the manufacturer certainly knows different as to what that more than likely means for the longevity of some of the components if given that minimum spec maintenance. Then again I imagine there are a fair number of people that really don't care as long the vehicle gets them a certain number of years down the road because they are the type that want the next new thing, new and improved ... more bells and crap etc on the new one on the show room floor. Manufacturers have learned the phycological game to entice the customer out of their money !

asilverblazer · June 16

17 hours ago, Chuck FB said:

I imagine the cold winters up here with repeated short runs in town every day for those that live and work in town and given what I have come to learn on this forum with DI engines having fuel dilution issues, and if they don't change the oil until it says to but keep driving it for a while, I bet all that is just lovely on those finicky lifters.

The GM oil life monitor 'should' be able to account for these conditions in determining the OCI.

My driving habits and environment allow the oil life monitor to trend to the maximum end of it's programming, I think most are programmed to max out at 7500 miles.

Grumpy Bear · June 16

2 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

The GM oil life monitor 'should' be able to account for these conditions in determining the OCI.

One would think. BUT....This is what a Google search gives for the GM OLM system:

It doesn't measure oil condition save the highly indirect water temperature. It should measure oil temperature and as we've discussed they are not as closely related as one might assume. The algorithm is based on expected conditions at the end of a certain number of miles or revolutions. And sirs, this estimated value is not tilted in the engines favor. It favors the OEM's bottom line. There are no magical number of miles nor revolutions. No magical time limit. There is only what can be measured directly and only in the broadest of terms would the values used even come close to reality.

It samples nothing. It has no idea where the oil started or where it will finish given the limited values use to create the algorithm. It is just a reminder for the brain dead to do something at some time to keep the warranty in tact. Pure fiction.

Key Factors in Oil Life Calculation

The OLM calculates the remaining oil life percentage based on the following factors:

Factor	Description
Engine Revolutions	Tracks the number of engine revolutions since the last reset, decreasing oil life with use.
Mileage Since Last Reset	Monitors the distance driven since the last oil change, capped at 7,500 miles for most models.
Time Since Reset	Decreases oil life over time, dropping to 0% after one year, regardless of mileage.
Engine Temperature	Adjusts oil life based on coolant temperature; exceeding 260°F sets oil life to 0%.

PunchT37 · June 16

My last oil change I did at 10,520 miles on vehicle. 3135 miles on oil. OLM says 44% remaining. `25 Silverado 5.3.

4 oil changes on this thing at this mileage.

asilverblazer · June 16

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

It doesn't measure oil condition save the highly indirect water temperature. It should measure oil temperature and as we've discussed they are not as closely related as one might assume. The algorithm is based on expected conditions at the end of a certain number of miles or revolutions. And sirs, this estimated value is not tilted in the engines favor. It favors the OEM's bottom line. There are no magical number of miles nor revolutions. No magical time limit. There is only what can be measured directly and only in the broadest of terms would the values used even come close to reality.

It samples nothing. It has no idea where the oil started or where it will finish given the limited values use to create the algorithm. It is just a reminder for the brain dead to do something at some time to keep the warranty in tact. Pure fiction.

Key Factors in Oil Life Calculation

The OLM calculates the remaining oil life percentage based on the following factors:

Factor Description

Engine Revolutions Tracks the number of engine revolutions since the last reset, decreasing oil life with use.

Mileage Since Last Reset Monitors the distance driven since the last oil change, capped at 7,500 miles for most models.

Time Since Reset Decreases oil life over time, dropping to 0% after one year, regardless of mileage.

Engine Temperature Adjusts oil life based on coolant temperature; exceeding 260°F sets oil life to 0%.

I know the system does not sample the oil, though I would expect slightly more sophisticated algorithms than what you posted or what I found in 18-NA-125. The coolant temperature readings and how it alters the oil life are probably the least understood in the algorithm. Nothing definitive is published regarding how those temperatures are used that I can find beyond the bulletin I referenced.

Also, I agree with the disconnect between coolant temperature and oil temperature. Maybe they aren't concerned with oil temperature (directly) or can extrapolate what the oil temperature should be based on coolant and ambient temperature... all speculation on my part how they are using coolant temperature to 'degrade' oil life, I doubt it to be a simple calculation.

I found lots of suggestions that it monitors/uses other parameters, including oil temperature directly, as well as someone saying injector pulse width has a heavy hand in the algorithm.

I KNOW a bunch more schooling, time and money than what I have has been spent on the OLM than what I ever could, to end up at a maximum OCI of 7500 miles.

Grumpy Bear · June 17

4 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

I know the system does not sample the oil, though I would expect slightly more sophisticated algorithms than what you posted or what I found in 18-NA-125. The coolant temperature readings and how it alters the oil life are probably the least understood in the algorithm. Nothing definitive is published regarding how those temperatures are used that I can find beyond the bulletin I referenced.

Also, I agree with the disconnect between coolant temperature and oil temperature. Maybe they aren't concerned with oil temperature (directly) or can extrapolate what the oil temperature should be based on coolant and ambient temperature... all speculation on my part how they are using coolant temperature to 'degrade' oil life, I doubt it to be a simple calculation.

I found lots of suggestions that it monitors/uses other parameters, including oil temperature directly, as well as someone saying injector pulse width has a heavy hand in the algorithm.

I KNOW a bunch more schooling, time and money than what I have has been spent on the OLM than what I ever could, to end up at a maximum OCI of 7500 miles.

18-NA-125 is the document from the OEM, GM, and yet; and although they give a full and detailed discussion of the inputs and outputs your conclusion is :bs: ?

Am I reading that right? They gave you the answer and your response is :bs: , I'm trusting it anyway?

Have you ever heard me say, "I don't do irrational"?

Grumpy Bear · June 17

23 hours ago, KARNUT said:

That’s pretty tough Grumpy. I reread the previous few posts. They all reference oil changes. Much like your last thread. In my humble opinion it keeps things interesting.

@KARNUT a few days (pages) ago I ask a specific question about the ISO 4406 test. The WHAT and WHY. I hadn't posted to this thread in awhile an yet the response had nothing to do with the CURRENT question, but continued the same rehash of "What we do" and 'What we've done". It ignored the question in its entirety.

Now the CURRENT query is further being derailed. "I like what I've got and I don't want to talk about your question I want to talk about why I don't want to talk about your question".

Stan that isn't interesting. It's disruptive and unproductive.

I tired again further up this page with post on the same ISO method expanding that thought and this below

18 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

The GM oil life monitor 'should' be able to account for these conditions in determining the OCI.

Irrational, it doesn't and it can't and it was explained not just by me but by the MANUFACTURE and was disregarded and Stan I find it tiresome. I get it when people are satisfied with there routines. I get it that some don't like having those routines questioned.

Know what I don't get? That these people insist on making sure that no one else gets to explore something they DO find interesting and worth the pursuit.

Guy's if you don't like chocolate ice cream and chocolate ice cream is the topic why the compulsion to pick it up and disrupt the exchange of people that do? :wtf:

KARNUT · June 17

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

@KARNUT a few days (pages) ago I ask a specific question about the ISO 4406 test. The WHAT and WHY. I hadn't posted to this thread in awhile an yet the response had nothing to do with the CURRENT question, but continued the same rehash of "What we do" and 'What we've done". It ignored the question in its entirety.

Now the CURRENT query is further being derailed. "I like what I've got and I don't want to talk about your question I want to talk about why I don't want to talk about your question".

Stan that isn't interesting. It's disruptive and unproductive.

I tired again further up this page with post on the same ISO method expanding that thought and this below

Irrational, it doesn't and it can't and it was explained not just by me but by the MANUFACTURE and was disregarded and Stan I find it tiresome. I get it when people are satisfied with there routines. I get it that some don't like having those routines questioned.

Know what I don't get? That these people insist on making sure that no one else gets to explore something they DO find interesting and worth the pursuit.

Guy's if you don't like chocolate ice cream and chocolate ice cream is the topic why the compulsion to pick it up and disrupt the exchange of people that do?

So any kind of deviation is not permitted. Even if it manages to touch on Oils Change intervals only if, it addresses your latest thread. Boring.

Edited June 17 by KARNUT

OnTheReel · June 17

Historically I’ve run about 2 to 1. So two oil changes in the time it takes the OLM to tick over once. I only reset them when the truck starts reminding me to get an oil change and have no use for them.

In no cases has the oil I’ve sampled been fit to run twice as long so the OLM is bunk across GM and other makes/models.

My experience is that there’s ALWAYS something. Either the TBN is ready to fall off the cliff, fuel dilution too high, viscosity down (shear or dilution). But I suppose if you never actually test, you wouldn’t know.