[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

I'm not even going to start on this again. LOL.

The real entertainment can be found in the statement above. LOL.

[TotalPower]

This is a gross miss-representation of what SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119
determined. The title of the paper is - "Antiwear Performance of Low
Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test"
The test was a pure wear test using externally driven valve train
components. A complete engine was not involved. There was no dilution of the
oil by blow-by, no combustion products added to the oil, and no water added
to the oil. The results might matter if you are building a sealed machine
driven by an electric motor, but trying to claim this paper is a basis for
extending oil change intervals is not reasonable

[Chriztofor]

Originally Posted by TotalPower

This is a gross miss-representation of what SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119
determined. The title of the paper is - "Antiwear Performance of Low
Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test"
The test was a pure wear test using externally driven valve train
components. A complete engine was not involved. There was no dilution of the
oil by blow-by, no combustion products added to the oil, and no water added
to the oil. The results might matter if you are building a sealed machine
driven by an electric motor, but trying to claim this paper is a basis for
extending oil change intervals is not reasonable

I wouldn't discount everything these guys did, except they didn't test the right oil. They didn't use Mobil 0-40

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html

[chris328i]

A careful review of the data offered shows that there are a number of false conclusions regarding the data and Mobil 1 5w-30 testing that should be noted.

1. Wear metals from a UOA are not an appropriate means to determine OCIs as there is no direct correlation between the two. A UOA only determines the physical properties of the oil and what contaminants are present. The wear rate in the engine can change for any number of reasons unrealated to the oil used or the drain interval used. If you want to use wear as a means to determine a proper UOA then you'd need to conduct the proper wear testing which was not done in the Mobil 1 test. So their test premise was incorrect to start with as are a number of their conclusions.

2. No where in their testing did they show that changing the oil filter reduced wear. What they actually did was dilute the specific wear metals when they topped up the oil while changing the oil filter which also removed some wear metals from the total count.

3. If you were to use wear metals from UOA as a basis for determining a proper OCI - which would be inappropriate as there is no direct correlation, then the test data shows 14-16K miles is the best range for an OCI as all engines will require "topping up" over the course of 15K OCIs.

4. Their mathematical model suggests that topping up with 1 qt. of oil extends the OCI - based on wear metals, by 8K miles. This is debatable but it's likely that renewing the additive package on an oil only intended to run 10K-12K miles, is quite likely why the oil was still fine at 18K miles.

5. Had they tested BMW engines with LL01 oils more than likely the oil would have still been perfectly fine at 20K miles as Blackstones results at 15K and even the mundane non LL01 5w-30 M1 used in this test went 18K without issue.

6. Keeping in mind that M1 5w-30 is formualted as a typical 10K OCI based oil, their 8K-10K recommended OCIs have no basis from the data they presented as all engines are likely to need a top up before 8K miles.

7. So based on the evidence presented by Blackstone, the Mobil 1 tests, Ford's testing and BMW's CBS OCIs it should be obvious that LL01 oils are perfectly safe to use for up to 15K miles and likely more. Changing the oil more often than 15K miles can increase wear, supporting BMW's 15K OCIs as being most likely the best OCI.

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html

[TotalPower]

Originally Posted by chris328i

A careful review of the data offered shows that there are a number of false conclusions regarding the data and Mobil 1 5w-30 testing that should be noted.

1. Wear metals from a UOA are not an appropriate means to determine OCIs as there is no direct correlation between the two. A UOA only determines the physical properties of the oil and what contaminants are present. The wear rate in the engine can change for any number of reasons unrealated to the oil used or the drain interval used. If you want to use wear as a means to determine a proper UOA then you'd need to conduct the proper wear testing which was not done in the Mobil 1 test. So their test premise was incorrect to start with as are a number of their conclusions.

2. No where in their testing did they show that changing the oil filter reduced wear. What they actually did was dilute the specific wear metals when they topped up the oil while changing the oil filter which also removed some wear metals from the total count.

3. If you were to use wear metals from UOA as a basis for determining a proper OCI - which would be inappropriate as there is no direct correlation, then the test data shows 14-16K miles is the best range for an OCI as all engines will require "topping up" over the course of 15K OCIs.

4. Their mathematical model suggests that topping up with 1 qt. of oil extends the OCI - based on wear metals, by 8K miles. This is debatable but it's likely that renewing the additive package on an oil only intended to run 10K-12K miles, is quite likely why the oil was still fine at 18K miles.

5. Had they tested BMW engines with LL01 oils more than likely the oil would have still been perfectly fine at 20K miles as Blackstones results at 15K and even the mundane non LL01 5w-30 M1 used in this test went 18K without issue.

6. Keeping in mind that M1 5w-30 is formualted as a typical 10K OCI based oil, their 8K-10K recommended OCIs have no basis from the data they presented as all engines are likely to need a top up before 8K miles.

7. So based on the evidence presented by Blackstone, the Mobil 1 tests, Ford's testing and BMW's CBS OCIs it should be obvious that LL01 oils are perfectly safe to use for up to 15K miles and likely more. Changing the oil more often than 15K miles can increase wear, supporting BMW's 15K OCIs as being most likely the best OCI.

According to you what does wear oil down? it seems you would go a lifetime without oil change.

How long can you hold your breathe? lol

[Glim]

If I change my oil in the forest does it make the trees cry?

[chris328i]

Originally Posted by TotalPower

According to you what does wear oil down? it seems you would go a lifetime without oil change.

How long can you hold your breathe? lol

Oil doesn't ever "wear out". Oil becomes contaminated during use and the additive package is consumed, but the oil itself does not "wear out". Proper filtration and replenishing of the additive package with top ups, extends the drain intervals. Some Over The Road (OTR), class 8 trucks go 100,000 miles between drains just by using UOA and topping up the oil as needed.

Before VW switched to full synthetic oils they use to use re-claimed oil as the OE fill. This is used oil that has been properly cleaned and the additive package restored. This oil worked just fine because the oil itself doesn't wear out.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by chris328i

Oil doesn't ever "wear out". Oil becomes contaminated during use and the additive package is consumed, but the oil itself does not "wear out". Proper filtration and replenishing of the additive package with top ups, extends the drain intervals. Some Over The Road (OTR), class 8 trucks go 100,000 miles between drains just by using UOA and topping up the oil as needed.

Before VW switched to full synthetic oils they use to use re-claimed oil as the OE fill. This is used oil that has been properly cleaned and the additive package restored. This oil worked just fine because the oil itself doesn't wear out.

Dude you are such a radical! They are not going to like you around here.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Dude you are such a radical! They are not going to like you around here.

Notice the mention of UOA to determine OCI - what a radical idea....

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Notice the mention of UOA to determine OCI - what a radical idea....

Now that you are quoting chris328i to make your (false) argument here's what he actually said:

A careful review of the data offered shows that there are a number of false conclusions regarding the data and Mobil 1 5w-30 testing that should be noted.

1. Wear metals from a UOA are not an appropriate means to determine OCIs as there is no direct correlation between the two. A UOA only determines the physical properties of the oil and what contaminants are present. The wear rate in the engine can change for any number of reasons unrealated to the oil used or the drain interval used. If you want to use wear as a means to determine a proper UOA then you'd need to conduct the proper wear testing which was not done in the Mobil 1 test. So their test premise was incorrect to start with as are a number of their conclusions.
- Which is what I've been saying all along.

2. No where in their testing did they show that changing the oil filter reduced wear. What they actually did was dilute the specific wear metals when they topped up the oil while changing the oil filter which also removed some wear metals from the total count.

3. If you were to use wear metals from UOA as a basis for determining a proper OCI - which would be inappropriate as there is no direct correlation, then the test data shows 14-16K miles is the best range for an OCI as all engines will require "topping up" over the course of 15K OCIs.


4. Their mathematical model suggests that topping up with 1 qt. of oil extends the OCI - based on wear metals, by 8K miles. This is debatable but it's likely that renewing the additive package on an oil only intended to run 10K-12K miles, is quite likely why the oil was still fine at 18K miles.

5. Had they tested BMW engines with LL01 oils more than likely the oil would have still been perfectly fine at 20K miles as Blackstones results at 15K and even the mundane non LL01 5w-30 M1 used in this test went 18K without issue.

6. Keeping in mind that M1 5w-30 is formualted as a typical 10K OCI based oil, their 8K-10K recommended OCIs have no basis from the data they presented as all engines are likely to need a top up before 8K miles.

7. So based on the evidence presented by Blackstone, the Mobil 1 tests, Ford's testing and BMW's CBS OCIs it should be obvious that LL01 oils are perfectly safe to use for up to 15K miles and likely more. Changing the oil more often than 15K miles can increase wear, supporting BMW's 15K OCIs as being most likely the best OCI.

chris328i is discussing the use of the UOA to determine the level of cleanliness of the oil and to determine when to renew the oil additive package to the oil in the crankcase. He is not advocating use of the UOA to determine engine wear, unlike you who is suggesting using UOA to determine engine wear.

Thanks for trying...

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

chris328i is discussing the use of the UOA to determine the level of cleanliness of the oil and to determine when to renew the oil additive package to the oil in the crankcase. He is not advocating use of the UOA to determine engine wear, unlike you who is suggesting using UOA to determine engine wear.

Thanks for trying...

So that we all understand, it sounds like you are saying you see the usefulness UOA. That is far departure from your earlier nuggets of wisdom:

Originally Posted by ENINTY

The oil analysis is a waste of money. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Trying to understand how the oil is lubricating the engine via oil analysis is a waste of money.

Originally Posted by ENINTY

I think by giving my real-life examples I've proven it [UOA] is a waste of money.

Originally Posted by ENINTY

All which means getting your oil tested is a waste of money. If longevity of your engine is a primary concern, then just spend the money your going to spend on oil analysis on more frequent oil changes.

Originally Posted by ENINTY

It's much easier to look at the inside of the valve cover rather than take a sample of the oil sending and it to Blackstone, waiting for the results, then acting upon it

Originally Posted by ENINTY

So the point is that BMW has already done the guestimating for you through its oil testing regimen (which is why you are wasting your money) and also actually gives you a gauge for the oil condition. The oil condition monitor is built into the oil level sensor and electrically measures the condition of the oil.

So are you still sticking to your statements? It's okay if you need to change your mind or want to change the topic.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

So that we all understand, it sounds like you are saying you see the usefulness UOA. That is far departure from your earlier nuggets of wisdom:


So are you still sticking to your statements? It's okay if you need to change your mind or want to change the topic.

YES I am sticking with all of my previous statements (there are many more). You did a good job summarizing them (although a few are taken out of context in an attempt to discredit them): Rather than spend the money on the UOA, just spend it on more frequent oil changes, if you think that helps prolong the life of the engine. BMW has already done the testing using proper scientific principles, whereas a UOA from Blackstone does not. A UOA tells you nothing but the condition of the oil. It's a waste of money.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

YES.

Contradiction, that's brilliant!!!

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Contradiction, that's brilliant!!!

Again with the childish arguments. Lovely.

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

chris328i is discussing the use of the UOA to determine the level of cleanliness of the oil and to determine when to renew the oil additive package to the oil in the crankcase. He is not advocating use of the UOA to determine engine wear, unlike you who is suggesting using UOA to determine engine wear.

Thanks for trying...

Originally Posted by ENINTY

BMW has already done the testing using proper scientific principles, whereas a UOA from Blackstone does not. A UOA tells you nothing but the condition of the oil. It's a waste of money.

Hope that clears it up for you.

How do you quote and support one statement promoting UOA, then turn around and claim it is a waste of money? That makes you looks silly all over again.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

How do you quote and support one statement promoting UOA, then turn around and claim it is a waste of money? That makes you looks silly all over again.

Stating facts of something is not the same as promoting or advocating it. I can also state a person can flush a $20 bill down the toilet, which is a fact, but I'm an not promoting the idea to do so. However, if I were to advocate such an action, I'd recommend wiping with it first, just so not to make it a complete waste of money.

Sorry to everyone else that I have to go make a toilet joke, but when one argues with a child, one must dip to their level...

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Stating facts of something is not the same as promoting or advocating it. I can also state a person can flush a $20 bill down the toilet, which is a fact, but I'm an not promoting the idea to do so. However, if I were to advocate such an action, I'd recommend wiping with it first, just so not to make it a complete waste of money.

Sorry to everyone else that I have to go make a toilet joke, but when one argues with a child, one must dip to their level...

Apart from contradicting and embarrassing yourself, what facts did you post? How again, with fact, did you prove that UOA was a waste $$? I can help here - you didn't.

Carry on flinging your poo....

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

Apart from contradicting and embarrassing yourself, what facts did you post? How again, with fact, did you prove that UOA was a waste $$? I can help here - you didn't.

Carry on flinging your poo....

Yep, that's the response I expected.

Now go finish that math problem I gave you...

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Yep, that's the response I expected.

Now go finish that math problem I gave you...

So I'll take that to mean you have no facts to back your claims that there is nothing to be gained from UOA. SURPRISE!!!

[Brian_TII]

I think it's also important to point out that just because the oil degrades in viscosity over the oci that it doesn't mean that damage is being done to the engine. This change is expected over the life of the oil and engine manufactures are aware it. It doesn't automatically equate to engine damage. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference. I believe 15k mile changes are fine.... With that being said I am personally more comfortable with 10k mile changes. In the end there is zero proof that early changes are any better or worse than the recommended CBS based schedule. Do what you and your wallet are comfortable with.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by Clifton

So I'll take that to mean you have no facts to back your claims that there is nothing to be gained from UOA. SURPRISE!!!

No, I said it was a waste of money. I've been saying it all along. I will continue to say it. It's a waste of money.

I've got 30 years of car ownership, and almost 1M miles of driving experience, with not one engine failure. Every car I've owned has gone over 100,000 miles, most of them over 150,000, one of them past 230,000, and one of them to 256,000, and I've never sent any of my used oil anywhere to be tested; I've just followed the manufacturer's oil change interval recommendations. Those are facts that support my point - which is where you and I started this discussion in another thread a few months ago and have been boring everyone to death since. [And no, I'm not trying to show how big my balls are, just stating facts for Clifton because he's so concerned about them]

You can pay someone $20 to hit you in the head with a baseball bat. You will gain some factual knowledge from the experience, and it may be interesting to know how it feels to get hit in the head with a baseball bat, but the question is is it worth it?

[Clifton]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

No, I said it was a waste of money. I've been saying it all along. I will continue to say it. It's a waste of money.

I've got 30 years of car ownership, and almost 1M miles of driving experience, with not one engine failure. Every car I've owned has gone over 100,000 miles, most of them over 150,000, one of them past 230,000, and one of them to 256,000, and I've never sent any of my used oil anywhere to be tested; I've just followed the manufacturer's oil change interval recommendations. Those are facts that support my point - which is where you and I started this discussion in another thread a few months ago and have been boring everyone to death since. [And no, I'm not trying to show how big my balls are, just stating facts for Clifton because he's so concerned about them]

You can pay someone $20 to hit you in the head with a baseball bat. You will gain some factual knowledge from the experience, and it may be interesting to know how it feels to get hit in the head with a baseball bat, but the question is is it worth it?

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".