[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

My ex-girlfriend drove her Toyota Camry +267K miles and she never followed the manufactures's OCI - the car was lucky to ever see fresh oil. So that trumps your "factual" data and by your measure suggests regular/extended OCI's are a waste of money altogether - which neither of us will agree.

I know you want it to be real, but driving your car 800 miles week on a car with 162K miles does not constitute you as some kind of car maintenance prophet. Posting over and over about your "easy" miles is just silly. It's like bragging about getting exceptional brake pad life on a car the sees nothing but highway.

Nice try, but you are going to have to do better, "big balls".

LOL

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

LOL

Agreed. Let us know when you have facts debunking the use of UOA. Can't wait.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Agreed. Let us know when you have facts debunking the use of UOA. Can't wait.

Okay, one more time. It is a waste of money.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Okay, one more time. It is a waste of money.

So again, you have nothing to back that statement - go figure.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

So again, you have nothing to back that statement - go figure.

I just had a chocolate chip cookie (made by an Amish woman) and some ice cold milk. I'm content with life.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

I just had a chocolate chip cookie (made by an Amish woman) and some ice cold milk. I'm content with life.

Ignorance is bliss...

[Glim]

Cookies rock

[queensfield]

Especially with milk- yummy.

[Chriztofor]

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by queensfield

Especially with milk- yummy.

Full Grade A 100% milk too (no 2% or skim crap). I don't fuck around when it comes to chocolate chip cookies...

Maybe I should send the milk out to Blackstone for a PFA (Pre-consumption Fat Analysis) and check the weight of the milk.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Agreed. Let us know when you have facts debunking the use of UOA. Can't wait.

#1 depending on the method used they can only detect the size of metals within a defined range (ex 10-20 microns, or 5-15 microns, etc). Therefore they miss the less numerous but large particles or the more numerouse but smaller particles which may point to a larger issue.


Let me know if you want me to go on.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by Socom

#1 depending on the method used they can only detect the size of metals within a defined range (ex 10-20 microns, or 5-15 microns, etc). Therefore they miss the less numerous but large particles or the more numerouse but smaller particles which may point to a larger issue.


Let me know if you want me to go on.

Your tone sounds combative, but I'd be happy to have an open discussion. The last guy cracked under pressure and is now babbling in the corner about cow juice.

I'm a little confused by you statements. The upper micron ranges you are referring to are in the realms of what most oil filters trap so why would those particles matter?

Also if you want to discuss Blackstone's method, I don't have a clue and perhaps you should call them.

In other words, I don't see what your #1 statement has to do with proving UOA is a waste of money, so, yes, please go on.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Your tone sounds combative, but I'd be happy to have an open discussion. The last guy cracked under pressure and is now babbling in the corner about cow juice.

I'm a little confused by you statements. The upper micron ranges you are referring to are in the realms of what most oil filters trap so why would those particles matter?

Also if you want to discuss Blackstone's method, I don't have a clue and perhaps you should call them.

In other words, I don't see what your #1 statement has to do with proving UOA is a waste of money, so, yes, please go on.

Not combative at all. As for particle size on the higher limit it would depend on the filter media no?. You if you want other reasons do a search. My opinion about UOA's is well documented.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by Socom

Not combative at all. As for particle size on the higher limit it would depend on the filter media no?. You if you want other reasons do a search. My opinion about UOA's is well documented.

It would depend on the efficiency of the media, but I'm still not clear where you were going with how that relates to the worthiness of UOA.

A quick search of your documented opinion yields that you support most of the functions performed during UOA.

Originally Posted by Socom

Aside from TBN,insolubles,flashpoint,coolant a UOA is worthless in this forum.

Essentially, you've named 4 of the 5 examinations that make up UOA.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Your tone sounds combative, but I'd be happy to have an open discussion. The last guy cracked under pressure and is now babbling in the corner about cow juice.

I'm a little confused by you statements. The upper micron ranges you are referring to are in the realms of what most oil filters trap so why would those particles matter?

Also if you want to discuss Blackstone's method, I don't have a clue and perhaps you should call them.

In other words, I don't see what your #1 statement has to do with proving UOA is a waste of money, so, yes, please go on.

Since you insist on enticing responses with asinine comments, I'll continue on the discussion (after I promised myself I wouldn't); I'm really getting bored of this discussion, whichis why milk and cookies became the better option to waste my tme on.

The vast majority of users of UOA are for over-the-road freight trucks and other commercial fleet transportation service industries, piston powered ships, and other industrial diesel powered applications where the importance of engine failure is both a short term economic cost (for repair) and longer term cost in lost revenue due to equipment unavailability. In these cases, the engines used in these vehicles operate under greatly varying environmental operating conditions and power-load use. What is common among this group of industrial engines is they use a huge and expensive quantity of lubricating oil (as compared to an average passenger car) and use of both direct and by-pass oil filtering systems. Many engine manufacturers of these engines recommend a UOA as determination of when to change the oil for these reasons, as laboratory testing of oil performance cannot sufficiently model the varying conditions of which the engines operate.

For passenger cars, the oil load in an engine is relatively cheap - on the order of $45 dollars or so - and of relative small quantity. My point from the beginning (points made in another thread you and I first started discussing this issue) has been that the $20 cost of an UOA relative to the cost of the oil one is trying to prolong the life of does not meet a reasonable cost benefit ratio. And further, to actually get a trend on oil performance to predict engine wear [in your mind], requires at least two data points ($40 of UOA cost for a $40 load of oil), but proper trend analysis would require data capture of engine loading (which BMW's CBS does) and more than two UOA data points of oil condition, not to mention the unpredictable change in operating condition the engine has gone through during the use of the oil load. So in the case of an industrial engine where there is significant cost to changing the oil in the sump due to the quantity of oil used it is worth using UOA (especially when recommended by the manufacturer) to evaluate the oil’s condition. For a passenger car, where the oil quantity is $40 and the testing models are far more accurate it is not worth spending $20 to $60 on a UOA, especially considering the engine manufacturer, in this case BMW, has already done the testing and has developed the applicable OCI. Which means, as I have repeatedly stated, the UOA for a modern passenger car is a waste of money, and the money is better spent, if one is concerned about engine protection, on a shorter duration OCI than what the manufacturer recommends.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Since you insist on enticing responses with asinine comments, I'll continue on the discussion (after I promised myself I wouldn't); I'm really getting bored of this discussion, whichis why milk and cookies became the better option to waste my tme on.

For passenger cars, the oil load in an engine is relatively cheap - on the order of $45 dollars or so - and of relative small quantity. My point from the beginning (points made in another thread you and I first started discussing this issue) has been that the $20 cost of an UOA relative to the cost of the oil one is trying to prolong the life of does not meet a reasonable cost benefit ratio. And further, to actually get a trend on oil performance to predict engine wear, requires at least two data points ($40 of UOA cost for a $40 load of oil), but proper trend analysis would require data capture of engine loading (which BMW's CBS does) and more than two UOA data points of oil condition, not to mention the unpredictable change in operating condition the engine has gone through during the use of the oil load. So in the case of an industrial engine where there is significant cost to changing the oil in the sump due to the quantity of oil used it is worth using UOA (especially when recommended by the manufacturer) to evaluate the oil’s condition. For a passenger car, where the oil quantity is $40 and the testing models are far more accurate it is not worth spending $20 to $60 on a UOA, especiall considering the engine manufacturer, in this case BMW, has already done the testing and has developed the applicable OCI. Which means, as I have repeatedly stated, the UOA for a modern passenger car is a waste of money, and the money is better spent, if one is concerned about engine protection, on a shorter duration OCI than what the manufacturer recommends.

Perhaps you didn't realize this in your cookies and milk fueled rant, but everything you posted above was based on weak opinion. Writing endless paragraphs isn't going to save you on this one. I think the only fact you listed was the costs of UOA.

Since you cannot produce any facts of your own, let me add some to the discussion:

CBS cannot detect the remaining additives package in the oil
CBS cannot detect the oils viscosity as it ages
CBS cannot detect trace amounts of coolant in the oil, i.e., head gasket leak
CBS cannot detect excessive wear of internal parts, i.e., failing bearings
CBS cannot detect traces of insolubles, i.e., filtration effectiveness
CBS cannot detect the flash point of the oil
Oil Analysis Can do all of the above for $20.

Just like having blood work at the Doctor's office, UOA lets you track and gauge the health of your engine and oil (if you are interested). The benefits of UOA go beyond just dialing in OCIs. Without UOA's you are simply guessing what is going on inside your engine.

Again, nice try, but the next time you write one of your useless dissertations, please focus and provide us some facts not your opinions.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Perhaps you didn't realize this in your cookies and milk fueled rant, but everything you posted above was based on weak opinion. Writing endless paragraphs isn't going to save you on this one. I think the only fact you listed was the costs of UOA.

Since you cannot produce any facts of your own, let me add some to the discussion:

CBS cannot detect the remaining additives package in the oil
CBS cannot detect the oils viscosity as it ages
CBS cannot detect trace amounts of coolant in the oil, i.e., head gasket leak
CBS cannot detect excessive wear of internal parts, i.e., failing bearings
CBS cannot detect traces of insolubles, i.e., filtration effectiveness
CBS cannot detect the flash point of the oil
Oil Analysis Can do all of the above for $20.

Just like having blood work at the Doctor's office, UOA lets you track and gauge the health of your engine and oil (if you are interested). The benefits of UOA go beyond just dialing in OCIs. Without UOA's you are simply guessing what is going on inside your engine.

Again, nice try, but the next time you write one of your useless dissertations, please focus and provide us some facts not your opinions.

I'm going to end this discussion, because you really just can't comprehend what the fuck I am saying. I used to think you were one of those guys who just liked to argue for arguments sake, but now I've come to realize you just don’t understand. And what I find really funny is you've admitted that you don't even know how Blackstone performs its testing, which leads me to believe you don’t understand anything about testing at all.

All I have ever said is spending $20 to make a decision on when to change $40 worth of engine oil is not cost effective; it is just better to change the oil. I can't make the statement any clearer than that. And for trying to determine how the oil prevents engine wear using a UOA, which I'd debate as well (remember our discussion on the scientific method?), you'd need at least two $20 test samples - it is not hard to understand that to try and analyze a trend of anything you need at a minimum, two sets of data. Spending $40 on UOA, which is basically the cost of the oil in the engine of a 7-quart N52/N54, makes my argument more persuasive. For some reason you keep babbling on about TBNs, flash points, micro-levels of trace wear metals, blah, blah, blah. Which is all fine and good, but it doesn't refute my point that it is a waste of money to spend $40 testing a sample of oil that costs $42 (assuming $6 per quart x 7 quarts).

And the CBS does tell you those things, just not through direct test measurement. The CBS oil condition monitor measures the condition of the oil through the oil's dielectric properties using a twin-tube capacitance sensor. The dielectric measurement data is then compared to known test data of the dielectric properties of used oil of test samples BMW developed in laboratory testing of oil performance in its engines. The CBS compares the data from the sensor in the engine to the stored test data from BMW’s laboratory testing and uses it as part of algorithm to determine when the oil requires changing. It's the process of comparative modeling and it is used by engineers, scientists, and doctors, among others, for the evaluation of all sorts of various comparisons of mechanical, chemical, biological, and network systems, (just to mention a few), performance.

And I know you’ll come back with some dribble about trace coolant (glycol) and indication of head gasket leaks, to which my response is: head gasket leaks are rare in modern engines, and will show up most likely as a cylinder misfire in the OBD II system (which would then dictate further investigation) or as milky oil contamination (without causing catastrophic damage to the engine), that there are other methods than UOA to discover a head gasket leak. Further, if you do find trace amounts of glycol in the oil through a UOA the source could be something other than the head gasket (think oil filter housing profile gasket in the N52/54). And if it turns out to be a head gasket, the cost to repair it is the same whether the leak is far advanced or not.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

I'm going to end this discussion, because you really just can't comprehend what the fuck I am saying. I used to think you were one of those guys who just liked to argue for arguments sake, but now I've come to realize you just don’t understand. And what I find really funny is you've admitted that you don't even know how Blackstone performs its testing, which leads me to believe you don’t understand anything about testing at all.

All I have ever said is spending $20 to make a decision on when to change $40 worth of engine oil is not cost effective; it is just better to change the oil. I can't make the statement any clearer than that. And for trying to determine how the oil prevents engine wear using a UOA, which I'd debate as well (remember our discussion on the scientific method?), you'd need at least two $20 test samples - it is not hard to understand that to try and analyze a trend of anything you need at a minimum, two sets of data. Spending $40 on UOA, which is basically the cost of the oil in the engine of a 7-quart N52/N54, makes my argument more persuasive. For some reason you keep babbling on about TBNs, flash points, micro-levels of trace wear metals, blah, blah, blah. Which is all fine and good, but it doesn't refute my point that it is a waste of money to spend $40 testing a sample of oil that costs $42 (assuming $6 per quart x 7 quarts).

And the CBS does tell you those things, just not through direct test measurement. The CBS oil condition monitor measures the condition of the oil through the oil's dielectric properties using a twin-tube capacitance sensor. The dielectric measurement data is then compared to known test data of the dielectric properties of used oil of test samples BMW developed in laboratory testing of oil performance in its engines. The CBS compares the data from the sensor in the engine to the stored test data from BMW’s laboratory testing and uses it as part of algorithm to determine when the oil requires changing. It's the process of comparative modeling and it is used by engineers, scientists, and doctors, among others, for the evaluation of all sorts of various comparisons of mechanical, chemical, biological, and network systems, (just to mention a few), performance.

And I know you’ll come back with some dribble about trace coolant (glycol) and indication of head gasket leaks, to which my response is: head gasket leaks are rare in modern engines, and will show up most likely as a cylinder misfire in the OBD II system (which would then dictate further investigation) or as milky oil contamination (without causing catastrophic damage to the engine), that there are other methods than UOA to discover a head gasket leak. Further, if you do find trace amounts of glycol in the oil through a UOA the source could be something other than the head gasket (think oil filter housing profile gasket in the N52/54). And if it turns out to be a head gasket, the cost to repair it is the same whether the leak is far advanced or not.

Would you please press the print button on your car's CBS? I'd like to see it provide a full report on what the oil and engine condition.

I get it, you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa clause too. The only thing I believe is that you clearly give CBS way too much credit. The CBS is not magic - it monitors fuel consumption, oil temp and applies voltage to the oil (dielectric measurement) see attached. I'm sorry, but you can't be serious and claim "And the CBS does tell you those things," when comparing to UOA results. That's like going to a doctor and in lieu of having lab work, you have him record caloric intake, temperature and run an electric current through you to determine if you have plaque/cholesterol, pathogens or cancer.

CBS is a dummy sensor - just like when it reminds you to change your brake fluid every 2 years (which is wrong by the way). And just for the sake of argument, lets say that CBS is magical and does all that you claim. Do you really think it is set to request oil changes for maximum engine life? Reminder, this is the same company that has eliminated gauges in favor of idiot temp lights and promotes "low cost ownership" for their cars.

Your ignorance is bliss approach to maintaining your car is demonstrated by your failure to understand: It's cheaper to replace a head gasket than being left stranded for the holidays from an overheated engine with a warped head. A preemptive discovery of coolant can mean the difference is saving an engine vs. destroying it.

Along those same lines, UOA shows you when metal particles are spiking, for example like those used in rod bearings. That way you can replace the bearings vs. replacing a blown motor. Thanks to UOA, my friend just discovered that her rod bearings are staring to let go. Sure she has to spend money to get the bearings replaced, but operating under the ignorance is bliss maintenance program that your suggesting, a connecting rod through the engine block would be her reward.

I'm beginning to suspect your lack of cerebral oxygen is due to your sphincter ani externus constricting your breathing airway. You really should come up for air once in a while.

[queensfield]

Hello Folks. At the cost of you both stating, "none of your business", may I interject? We all love this forum, our cars, and learn from each other's experiences. Shall we leave the subject and merits / demerits of CBS-based OCI vs oil analyses as a personal choice for all to determine for themselves? Just a suggestion to consider, but I am open to flames.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by queensfield

Hello Folks. At the cost of you both stating, "none of your business", may I interject? We all love this forum, our cars, and learn from each other's experiences. Shall we leave the subject and merits / demerits of CBS-based OCI vs oil analyses as a personal choice for all to determine for themselves? Just a suggestion to consider, but I am open to flames.

Flame I shall not.

We are all Forum brothers in the end.

Thanks.

[queensfield]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Flame I shall not.

We are all Forum brothers in the end.

Thanks.

As expected, you are a gentleman.

[TotalPower]

Would it harm an engine to continuously run on new oil? No.... Would it harm an engine to run on 100 year old oil saturated with carbon deposits, glycol,, no additive package, etc? Yes.

Find the happy point, deal with your decision either financially upfront or in the end.