Engine Oil - A slippery subject Part 2

thecardoc3 · November 2011

The discussion was engine oil, not ATF or Power Steering fluid.
- That said, off the top of my head I cannot think of even a single car sold in the U.S. for at least the last decade which used Group I based ATF or PS fluid

Neither can I, but that does not change the fact from which many versions are made and sold.
Those European spec oils, especially the 0W40 Mobile 1 are A3/B3 A3/B4 are too thick to meet north american specifications. 0W40 Mobile 1 is an excellent product and meets BMW's LL-01 and Mercedes 229.5 as well as others, but from Mobile's own website their 5W20 is a more appropriate choice for "a 2006 Chrysler Town and Country 3.8l", (I took the liberty of guessing a vehicle only for demonstration purposes) and would not neccesarily be for other models. Being vehicle specific is critical today, more than it ever has been in the past.

Sending the oil in for lab testing is nice but over stated in need for the average consumer. If I have to say, it seems it's a trend pushed by the labs that sell such services.

The basic facts are, motor oil choice is being redefined by the technology in today's engines as well as the need for tighter emissions restrictions and CAFE standards. The low SAPS requirements are critical for the life expectancy of the catalysts and AF sensors. By not disscussing these issues with full details and accuracy instead of simply relying on someone elses beliefs and experiences consumers are being mislead. The manufacturers routinely test failed catalysts and can prove when the failure is caused by not using a low SAPS specified oil. It's only a matter of time before they start bouncing any warranty claims on these devices from such failures which could have a consumer or a shop staring at a huge emissions related repair bill. Lowering SAPS does not guarantee reduced boundary layer protection, it does however require other more expensive compounds be used. In many cases it simply requires additional additives that work to prevent the flashing off of the SAPS which has them exit through the exhaust stream. An oil formulated with a high SAPS, may pass testing in a laboratory, but if those additives flash off and don't stay in the oil, they won't do the vehicle owner any good, especially when extended drain intervals come into play.

I'm going to keep telling the readers that they must follow the O.E. specs for more reasons than just proper engine protection. Those reasons include but are not limited to fuel mileage and protection of expensive emissions control devices. This information is consistent with the latest training available to professional technicians, and greatly exceeds that which taken place anytime in the last two decades, and is up to date with 2012 O.E. specifications.

shipo · November 2011

"Those European spec oils, especially the 0W40 Mobile 1 are A3/B3 A3/B4 are too thick to meet north american specifications. 0W40 Mobile 1 is an excellent product and meets BMW's LL-01 and Mercedes 229.5 as well as others,..."

Too thick? Per the specifications; Mobil 1 0W-40 is thinner when cold and a tad thicker when warm than when compared to the 5W-30 recommended by Chrysler. So, while you're arguing from a theoretical position which supports the company line, I'm arguing from a position of common sense supported by nearly 400,000 miles of usage (spread out across two 3.8 liter vans). The fact is that my UOAs show wear metals and contaminates at about half of the "universal averages" (which for the vans is something like 3,700 miles) in spite of the fact that I've been running ten to twelve thousand mile OCIs on them since the late 1990s.

As I've written a number of times, back when one of our vans had over 140,000 miles on the clock I pulled the heads off chasing down an elusive coolant leak (turned out to be a ten-cent "O" ring); that exercise didn't reveal the cause of the leak, but it did show me that all six cylinders were still sporting the factory honing marks on the cylinder walls. So much for "too thick".

"...but from Mobile's own website their 5W20 is a more appropriate choice for "a 2006 Chrysler Town and Country 3.8l", (I took the liberty of guessing a vehicle only for demonstration purposes) and would not neccesarily be for other models. Being vehicle specific is critical today, more than it ever has been in the past."

Here again, the "official oil" of the 2005(ish) and later minivans is 5W-20; all three of our vans are 2003 and older, the two I referenced above we bought new; the third we picked up used so it doesn't really factor in this conversation.

"Sending the oil in for lab testing is nice but over stated in need for the average consumer. If I have to say, it seems it's a trend pushed by the labs that sell such services."

Given that I push my OCIs well beyond the recommended intervals, a UOA test here and there is always prudent. That and it was a UOA which identified a coolant leak into the engine oil; something I would never have discovered were it not for the test.

"The basic facts are, motor oil choice is being redefined by the technology in today's engines as well as the need for tighter emissions restrictions and CAFE standards. The low SAPS requirements are critical for the life expectancy of the catalysts and AF sensors. By not disscussing these issues with full details and accuracy instead of simply relying on someone elses beliefs and experiences consumers are being mislead. The manufacturers routinely test failed catalysts and can prove when the failure is caused by not using a low SAPS specified oil. It's only a matter of time before they start bouncing any warranty claims on these devices from such failures which could have a consumer or a shop staring at a huge emissions related repair bill. Lowering SAPS does not guarantee reduced boundary layer protection, it does however require other more expensive compounds be used. In many cases it simply requires additional additives that work to prevent the flashing off of the SAPS which has them exit through the exhaust stream. An oil formulated with a high SAPS, may pass testing in a laboratory, but if those additives flash off and don't stay in the oil, they won't do the vehicle owner any good, especially when extended drain intervals come into play."

If/when I buy a car which was designed for and which specifies a low SAPS/504.00 oil, I'll be sure to use nothing but. That said, millions of VWs and Audis are on the road which were not so designed.

"I'm going to keep telling the readers that they must follow the O.E. specs for more reasons than just proper engine protection. Those reasons include but are not limited to fuel mileage and protection of expensive emissions control devices. This information is consistent with the latest training available to professional technicians, and greatly exceeds that which taken place anytime in the last two decades, and is up to date with 2012 O.E. specifications."

If nothing else, that is taking "safe" route.

Question: what would you say to a customer who brought you a car where the OEM oil specification is 5W-20 and they insisted on you using A) 0W-30 oil or

0W-20 oil?

thecardoc3 · November 2011

Mobile 1 0W40 carries an ACEA rating A3/B3 A3/B4. The specification required by Chrysler is A1/B1 A5/B5. You'll have to dig real deep into what that means, but you will find out that the A5/B5 5W30 (that also meets GM and Fords specs) is thinner than an A3/B3 0WXX at -40f. Trust me, it's confusing as all heck.

As I've written a number of times, back when one of our vans had over 140,000 miles on the clock I pulled the heads off chasing down an elusive coolant leak (turned out to be a ten-cent "O" ring); that exercise didn't reveal the cause of the leak, but it did show me that all six cylinders were still sporting the factory honing marks on the cylinder walls. So much for "too thick".

Did you actually measure the cylinders? I've torn down engines that clearly displayed "the cross hatch" that were .015 out of round. There's a reason for that, and one has to think about it for a while to figure out how that occurs.

Given that I push my OCIs well beyond the recommended intervals, a UOA test here and there is always prudent.

Pushing any oil, original specification or not past the manufacturers service interval would get you sued as a professional because of the consumers who would suffer failures under your watch. There's more to this than just your perception and limited experience. Multiply your exposure by 10,000 times which would represent a large shop or by the millions which would represent an O.E. and you wouldn't be so willing to put your customers at risk, especially if you would end up holding the note on the repair.

That and it was a UOA which identified a coolant leak into the engine oil; something I would never have discovered were it not for the test.

Congrats on that one, but there is always other evidence of a failure occuring that don't require such a step. Now, after noticing a loss of coolant where you must replace what is missing, and with no cause found the correct step is in fact an oil analysis just to take a look.

If/when I buy a car which was designed for and which specifies a low SAPS/504.00 oil, I'll be sure to use nothing but. That said, millions of VWs and Audis are on the road which were not so designed.

Have you seen the stories of the TDI and GDI camshaft failures? Ill bet many of the owners who's cars suffered those failures would love to have it explained to them why it occurred and why most of the failures were normally not covered under warranty.

Question: what would you say to a customer who brought you a car where the OEM oil specification is 5W-20 and they insisted on you using A) 0W-30 oil or 0W-20 oil?

That's easy, if the manufacturer allows for the substitution, AND the oil requested meets the specifications for the vehicle, sure, why not? If both of those conditions cannot be met, there is only one answer and it would be that they need to use a product that meets their vehicles specs, or they need to go elsewhere to someone who doesn't know better. Now some may say, it's their car if that's what they want in it just have them sign a waiver and make them happy. Having a signed waiver only proves that you knew what you were doing was wrong so if they have a problem the judge will quickly side against you as a technician and the shop. Any customer that tries to put us in a position to be wrong both ways, has at that moment stopped being a customer and is free to leave.

shipo · November 2011

"Trust me, it's confusing as all heck."

Not at all; you're once again spouting the official line instead of simply looking at the individual laboratory results. Long story short, 0W-40 is thinner at -40 than the 5W-30 you referenced.

"Did you actually measure the cylinders? I've torn down engines that clearly displayed "the cross hatch" that were .015 out of round. There's a reason for that, and one has to think about it for a while to figure out how that occurs."

Yes, the bores were about .010" out of round, a characteristic I attribute more to the normal distortion of an engine block than anything else. Regardless, I put the heads back on and drove the van another 60,000 miles before trading it in. Funny thing, during the second hundred thousand miles I put on the van the oil consumption remained the same as it had been since the engine was broken in (about 1 quart every 7,500 miles) and the fuel consumption continued to improve.

"Pushing any oil, original specification or not past the manufacturers service interval would get you sued as a professional because of the consumers who would suffer failures under your watch..."

I'm an engineer with long-long resume including a couple of European auto manufacturers; I do not service customer vehicles (nor have I for quite some time). As for my "limited experience", sorry, you're extremely wide of the mark. The thing is, from an engineering perspective, oil which meets the factory specification is not always the best oil for the engine; fact of life.

"Congrats on that one, but there is always other evidence of a failure occuring that don't require such a step. Now, after noticing a loss of coolant where you must replace what is missing, and with no cause found the correct step is in fact an oil analysis just to take a look."

I had in fact noticed the coolant loss, a loss rate which I'd long since calculated to be one ounce per seventeen hours of operation (did I mention I'm an engineer?); it's just that the "usual suspects" for a coolant leak all turned up negative.

"Have you seen the stories of the TDI and GDI camshaft failures? Ill bet many of the owners who's cars suffered those failures would love to have it explained to them why it occurred and why most of the failures were normally not covered under warranty."

I'm having a difficult time understanding what the above quote regarding the PDI and GDI engine failures has to do with our current conversation. All I'm saying is that if any given VW or Audi came from the factory with a recommendation of 502.00 oil, then that's what should be used; if it came with a 504.00 recommendation, then use that.

"That's easy, if the manufacturer allows for the substitution, AND the oil requested meets the specifications for the vehicle, sure, why not? If both of those conditions cannot be met, there is only one answer and it would be that they need to use a product that meets their vehicles specs, or they need to go elsewhere to someone who doesn't know better."

While I also might be inclined to not bend the rules too much were I in your shoes, I do believe there is a huge body of scientific evidence which suggests the manufacturer recommendation for oil is not necessarily in the best interest of the vehicle owner. So, since the only vehicles I now service are my own, I have the luxury of choosing oil which, based upon my research, is best for my engines and for my driving environment.

thecardoc3 · November 2011

Not at all; you're once again spouting the official line instead of simply looking at the individual laboratory results. Long story short, 0W-40 is thinner at -40 than the 5W-30 you referenced.

An SAE 0W spec oil pumping max with no yeild stress Cp 60,000 at -40f
A GM spec 0W is Cp 30,000 at -40f

An SAE 5W Pumping max with no yeild stress Cp 60,000 at -35f
A GM 5W is Cp40,000 at -35f (It's only Cp 50,000 at -40f, while the SAE 0W is Cp 60,000)

As for my "limited experience", sorry, you're extremely wide of the mark.

Tell me, are you really qualified to take a position as a full time technician in an advanced shop today? Everyone seems to love to pretend that there is no skill required to be a top technician, and there darn sure doesn't seem to be any need for them to be academically gifted. It's all just swap parts right? Why is it the greatest "mechanics" that have ever walked this earth got to be that way without earning it inside a shop under a hood? Sorry but from my perspective, people earn the right to claim their ability to work in a shop today, by proving themselves IN A SHOP TODAY. It takes a lot more natural talent, combined with decades of experience and ongoing formal education to be a top technician than the consumers and most engineers like to give it credit for. JMHO.

I had in fact noticed the coolant loss, a loss rate which I'd long since calculated to be one ounce per seventeen hours of operation (did I mention I'm an engineer?); it's just that the "usual suspects" for a coolant leak all turned up negative.

A leak that gargantuan and you suspected a head gasket? Even from the oil analysis, I'd love to see you try and sell that to the average consumer that has a relative that is an engineer (or one that used to be a mechanic)

. Seriously though all jokes aside (that was just poking you for fun) "consumers" would never allow someone to tear down an engine over such a condition unless it was under a warranty and on someone elses dime. You said it was an O-ring, care to be specific on the exact location of this item? I've had a lot of engines apart, but can't recall an o-ring that blocks coolant from the crankcase. You were referring to one of the Chryslers correct?

I'm having a difficult time understanding what the above quote regarding the PDI and GDI engine failures has to do with our current conversation. All I'm saying is that if any given VW or Audi came from the factory with a recommendation of 502.00 oil, then that's what should be used; if it came with a 504.00 recommendation, then use that.

Oh it's just a simple little tidbit that should have suggested to you that my education in this matter is a bit more than just pedestrian, even if I am "just a mechanic and not an engineer". But you got part of the message correct, if a car calls for 504, then by all means it should get 504 and not 502. Similarly when a car calls for an oil that actually meets API and ILSAC specs, as the older Chryslers do, the oils you are choosing are in fact too thick. Too thick can in fact cause problems just like other misapplications can. For one the drop off in fuel consumption as the oil ages is a problem even when the vehicle starts out with the correct oil when extending drain intervals. If you start with an oil that is thicker than is specified, the fuel mileage losses can really be significant, in fact they can easily offset the implied savings from the less frequent service intervals.

While I also might be inclined to not bend the rules too much were I in your shoes, I do believe there is a huge body of scientific evidence which suggests the manufacturer recommendation for oil is not necessarily in the best interest of the vehicle owner. So, since the only vehicles I now service are my own, I have the luxury of choosing oil which, based upon my research, is best for my engines and for my driving environment

Here is where we really get to the crux of the problem. Up until this moment it was easy to try and project the image that the reccomendations that I am making are not based on training and education when in fact they are. I teach continuing educational classes, and the information was written by an engineer who specializes in lubrication technology. In reality, many of the other responses that you can see in this thread would fall under the heading of myths, but because they are popular they are widely accepted even though they are completely false. Trying to explain to a non-technician how an engine oil is designed to work right from the beginning alongside the design of a given engine would put the majority of them fast asleep. Getting to see how one oil graded as a 5W30 can be totally different from another 5W30 (one company XXXXXXXXX makes 9 different 5W30's XXXXXXXXX of which only one is typically available in the US) is eye opening, then to see them market a product which is a high HTHS that they say can be used in a GM vehicle requiring dexos which is actually a low HTHS is at the very least bothersome. That BTW is also one of the problems with the Mobile 1 0W30, or the 0W40 they are both High HTHS oils when Chrysler requires a Low HTHS (ILSAC) standard. There are other oils that you chould choose that would be a low HTHS, but could still be too thick at cold temperatures. You apparently know this, and make your choices in spite of the engineers who set the specifications, but what about the average consumer? Should we really be hitting them with this kind of contradictory information? Especially when they have thousands of dollars potentially on the line? That isn't a good idea from my point of view. This "simple" topic isn't so simple anymore and the last thing we need is for the shops and techs who have learned the difference to be mistreated for having done so.

wings8823 · November 2011

Thank you all for the very informative input to my question. Perhaps it would better for this discussion as to the specific vehicles for which I inquired about "100% Synthetic Oil."

First, I am a firm believer in the benefits of using a "solid" brand name of synthetic oil... a company name with a long history. I also believe that the oil that goes into the crank case should be according to the manufacturer's specifications.

I have two vehicles: 2003 Lincoln Navigator and a 2011 Ford Taurus SEL (not SHO). I have been using Castrol Syntec 5w-20 in the Navigator and 5w-20 Castrol GTX in the Taurus. (I change the "dino" oil and filter in the Taurus every 1000 - 1200 miles to keep clean oil in the engine during the"break-in.)

The Taurus now has 4500 miles. I am getting ready to switch to "full synthetic" oil for the Taurus. However, I have considered using another "brand name" of oil, although Castrol has served my needs well over the years.

I had used Castrol GTX 10w-30 in a 1986 Ford Bronco II that I bought new. When I traded for the 2011 Taurus, the engine had 254,000 plus miles. The rear axles wore out as for the reason to trade it in after 25 years of service.

Now that I am considering using another "brand" name of oil (full synthetic) in both my Navigator and the Taurus I wanted to get some feedback from this site. Evereyone here has a wealth of knowlege on this subject.

(BTW, the Navigator has 9000 actual documented miles. The Bronco II had been my primary "daily driver.")

Castrol and Mobil 1 synthetic oils, according to the bottle labels, meet the specifications of Ford and Lincoln. I also buy my oil and filters (OEM Motorcraft) from Wal-Mart which I have read at other sites the question
posed as to whether "brand name" oil sold at Wal-Mart is the same "mix" of additives, etc, as sold at a parts store. This might be due to Wal-Mart's name included at the bottom of the bottles' labels regarding recycling. (Oil sold at Wal-Mart is usually cheaper in price.)

With the above information in mind, all who care to respond, what "brand name" synthetic (labeled "full synthetic") oil do you use? Why do you use your favorite brand? How long have you used your favorite brand of "synthetic" oil?

Thank you for your feed back.

shipo · November 2011

You said it was an O-ring, care to be specific on the exact location of this item? I've had a lot of engines apart, but can't recall an o-ring that blocks coolant from the crankcase. You were referring to one of the Chryslers correct?

Correct, the timing chain cover on the 3.3 and 3.8 liter mills has a coolant crossover; when one or both of the "O" rings start to leak, the coolant drains right down into the oil.

thecardoc3 · November 2011

The 2011 Taurus requires an oi that meets Ford specification WSS-M2C930-A. That is a 5W20 semi-synthetic. One oil for certain matches that specification exactly, and that is Motorcraft. Using a conventional oil even for those short terms "during break-in" while not neccessary could actually cause problems unless the oil chosen matches the Ford spec.

When you look closer at all of this, you'll often find lines like "Meets the engine protection requirements of XXXXXX", well that's nice but with them only meeting the engine protection requirements (what ever that means) what about the other requirements that the O.E. has for their specified oil, are they somehow not important?

The Syntec 5W20 is an excellent choice for your Navigator.

My 2007 Mustang gets Mobile 1 5W20. My 2002 Explorer can be properly serviced with any conventional oil meeting API SM and ILSAC GF4. (which have been both superceeded by SN, and GF5)

roadburner · November 2011

I've been using Mobil 1 for nearly thirty years now; I typically change my oil per the manufacturer's recommendation while the car is in the warranty period, and then every ten to twelve thousand miles for the rest of the time I own the car.

As you know, I also use Mobil 1 exclusively. Here is Blackstone Labs' commentary on the most recent UOA from my 1995 Club Sport(the OCI was 8,240 miles):

Your BMW's engine appears to be doing quite well at 125,244 miles. Our universal averages show normal wear for the M42 4-cylinder after 3,800 miles of oil use. You ran this 0W/40 oil well past that mark, so it was nice to see all metals reading close to or below average. They were also in balance to one another and that shows normally wearing parts and no mechanical problems brewing. The oil's TBN was 5.7, meaning there was lots of active additive left. A reading of 1.0 means it is too low. Air and oil filtration (see silicon/insolubles) were normal.

shipo · November 2011

Don't get much better than that!

By the way, we just aded a 2012 VW GTI 6-Speed Manual to our stable yesterday. The thing's a little pocket rocket to be sure. :shades:

roadburner · November 2011

By the way, we just aded a 2012 VW GTI 6-Speed Manual to our stable yesterday. The thing's a little pocket rocket to be sure.

VERY nice! I'm envious.

wings8823 · November 2011

Actually, both the 5W-20 Castrol Edge and the Mobile 1 Extended Performance 5W-20 oil meet the "WSS-M2C930-A" Ford Spec. Both would also be excellent for a 2003 Lincoln Navigator, as well as, the 5W-20 Castrol Syntec.

The 2011 Ford Taurus Owner's Manual is a bit ambiguous regarding the type of oil to use (i.e. Full Synthetic, Semi-Synthetic, etc). The manual calls for both.

thecardoc3 · November 2011

When an oil does meet the O.E. spec it will say so on the back of the bottle.

Here is a Castrol Syntec pdf.

http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/castrol/castrol_usa/STAGING/local_assets/do- wnloads/p,q/pds_syntec_usa.pdf

Here is information on Castrol Edge

http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/castrol/castrol_usa/STAGING/local_assets/do- wnloads/f/Castrol_EDGE_FAQ.pdf

We can do this with every manufacturer and in fact we really need to today in order to understand what is really required to choose the correct oil for any one car.

thecardoc3 · November 2011

There are a number of articles on this site. Take this one here.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/oil-life-monitoring-systems.html

If you really start studying the topic, and then read that article and watch the videos associated to it you'll notice that they don't even get all of the details straight. Some information is better than none, but when some of it isn't accurate even if it's only by omission that's a problem!

wings8823 · November 2011

Thank you for the feedback. I did more in-depth research three days ago.

Lastly, by simply looking on the back of the bottle, I saw that Castrol GTX 5w-20, Castrol Edge w/ Syntec and Castrol Edge with FST (Titanium) ALL meet the "WSS" Ford OEM spec number for the 2011 Ford Taurus SEL.

I used the Castrol GTX 5W-20 during my 2011 Ford Taurus's first 4500, plus, miles (changing oil/filter every 1200 miles) to keep clean oil and filter in the egine to preclude possible "beak-in" issues. I am now using the Castrol 5W-20 Edge, FST Titanium Advanced Full Synthetic oil. I will also use the same in my 2003 Lincoln Navigator.

As for Mobile 1 5W-20, although a good oil, on the back of this oil bottle and the Mobil 1 Extended Performance bottle it states that Mobil 1 "recommends" use of the oil for meeting Ford's OEM "WSS" spec number for the 2011 Ford Taurus SEL. However, Mobile does not claim that the oil "meets" or "exceeds" the Ford OEM "WSS" spec number.... sort of a "play on words."

So.... If an oil company cannot or will not state, CLEARLY, that its oil(s) "meet" or "exeed" a manufactuer's specifications, I will not use the oil. As stated in the web links you sent, oil mixtures are in transition to meet the new standards of OEM manufactuers. Mobile may be waiting to see if their oils will later, in fact, "meet" or "exceed" Ford's "WSS" OEM spec requirements.

wings8823 · November 2011

Thank you for the feedback. My 2011 Taurus SEL owner's manual calls for 5,000 mile oil/filter change if the "oil monitoring system" should ever stop working.

I changed the oil and OEM (Motorcraft) filter, refilling with Castrol 5W-20 Edge Titanium FST (gold colored jug)... 5.5 quart capacity w/ filter change (Motorcraft FL-500-S). With 100 miles on the new oil the 'oil monitoring system' shows 99% oil life remaining from about 90% highway driving (62 - 65 MPH). At this mileage rate and current driving conditions, this should register 50% oil life remaining at approximately 7,000 - 7,500 miles. With this in mind, the "pint" size (small) OEM Motorcraft filter may not adequately filter the oil passed the 5,000 mile mark!

Ford and other automakers who now have concluded that "Full Synthetic" and/or "Semi-Synthetic" oil is synomous for today's engine libricant they should also redisign their oil filters... mainly increasing the filter volume!!! I am amazed that Ford and many other automakers have not INCREASED the size of their "pint size" small oil filters!

For now, I think I will go with a 5 month/5,000 mile oil/filter change using 5W/20 Castrol Edge Titanium FST full synthetic oil. Should I find a larger oil filter, different from the Motorcraft OEM brand, that will not compromise my "new car warranty" then I will consider 6,000 - 7,000 miles before changing the oil and filter. (Mobile 1 oil filter might be a consideration.)

thecardoc3 · November 2011

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner!!!!

Ford and other automakers who now have concluded that "Full Synthetic" and/or "Semi-Synthetic" oil is synomous for today's engine libricant they should also redisign their oil filters... mainly increasing the filter volume!!! I am amazed that Ford and many other automakers have not INCREASED the size of their "pint size" small oil filters!

Filter size and volume play a significant role in setting a manufacturers service intervals! It doesn't matter what oil you choose, or what any lab testing of your oil states after the fact. If the filters life is exceeded your not doing your engine any good at all!

roadburner · November 2011

It doesn't matter what oil you choose, or what any lab testing of your oil states after the fact.

Let me get this straight; are you saying that a good UOA is not indicative of the efficiency/longevity of the oil filter?
I guess I should tell Blackstone that they no longer need to test for insolubles...

shipo · November 2011

Filter size and volume play a significant role in setting a manufacturers service intervals! It doesn't matter what oil you choose, or what any lab testing of your oil states after the fact. If the filters life is exceeded your not doing your engine any good at all!

Unless someone is running junk oil and doesn't change it for twenty thousand miles or more (or if the engine is already in rough shape), it is phylically impossible to "exceed the life of the filter".

wings8823 · November 2011

Hmmm... Interesting thought. However, I personally would not agree that filter size and volume do not matter.

The Ford Motorcraft filter FL-500-S is small... very small.... much like the size filter found on a Honda Valkyrie. (I used to own a Valkyrie.)

Mobile 1 is good oil, along with their Mobile 1 Extended Performance oil. Now, with this said, Ford recommends changing the oil/filter at 5,000 miles should the "oil monitor" system stop working. This recommendation is made along with use of full or semi-synthetic oil. Wonder why Ford would recommend doing that using the motorcycle size OEM filter?

So, if all agree that Mobile is a good brand of oil, why is it that the Mibile 1 filter for the Ford Taurus is larger... more the size of many car or truck filters?
Obviously, size (volume) does matter for good filtering IF you take changing the oil further than what the OEM filter recommendation shows. In my case, that would be about 5,000 to 6,000 miles for my Taurus using the Motorcrat FL-500-S filter.

thecardoc3 · November 2011

Let me get this straight; are you saying that a good UOA is not indicative of the efficiency/longevity of the oil filter?

Every oil analysis I have ever sent out has come back with levels exceeding normal amounts of wear, much of which is typically aggravated by the bypass valve in the filter (or the block in some cases) as having been forced open when the filter became too heavily loaded and therefore unfiltered oil was circulating. In otherwords, it was already too late for that consumer and their engine.

When a customers car comes in the door with no oil showing on the dipstick and subsequently getting to watch maybe two quarts draining from the pan and even with it being warm/hot it's still clearly thicker than what is supposed to be in there, exactly how does an oil analysis tell anything that experience hasn't already observed? Then bump the bill up another $25 for that customer? In a perfect world we could do that, but you have to recognize how that consumer is likely to react to any additional expense beyond what they think an oil change should cost. Now maybe if Blackstone would do this for free....(sarc)

thecardoc3 · November 2011

Unless someone is running junk oil and doesn't change it for twenty thousand miles or more (or if the engine is already in rough shape), it is phylically impossible to "exceed the life of the filter".

Not true, not true at all and that's why the systems have bypass valves to allow unfiltered oil to flow in the event the filter becomes too restricted. In fact it only takes a small pressure differential to open the bypass valve, and high rpm combined with normal filter loading can routinely allow oil to bypass.

wings8823 · November 2011

Each to his (or her) own....

I traded a 1986 Ford Bronco II (bught new) for the 2011 Ford Taurus that I have now. Following Ford's service recommendations, using Castrol 10W30 GTX "dino" and Motorcraft FL-1A filter the engine had 254,000 miles, plus, and was still running strong AFTER 25 years of good service. The ONLY reason why I traded was due to the rear axles leaking oil. Ford no longer offered the axles. The aftermarket supplier had a back order on the axles. So, I traded. The Bronco was my "daily driver."

Too bad Ford does not recommend a Motorcraft filter for the 2011 Ford Taurus the size of the FL-1A filter!!! I really DO NOT like the small FL-500-S Motorcraft filter; hence, no more than 5000 to maybe 6000 mile/ 5-6 months intervals for me.

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving!

wings8823 · November 2011

For clarification to my last post, I am using Castrol 5W-20 Edge, Advanced Full Synthetic Titanium oil w/ FST for my Taurus. I would never take "dino" oil and filter further than 3 - 4 months or 3,000 - 4,000 miles.

shipo · November 2011

The presence of a bypass valve and the activation of said valve are two very different issues. Per a study done by GM in the late 1990s (which I read while I was at Mercedes), the only oil change (on a healthy engine) where the filter has a chance of becoming clogged to the point of activating the bypass valve is the very first following engine manufacture. Given how high the manufacturing tolerances have become since then, my bet is that even the first oil change interval is no longer sufficient to cause enough particulate matter to be trapped in the filter element to cause bypass activation.

So, why bother including a bypass at all? Once again per the GM study; the bypass valve is routinely activated when the oil temperatures are extremely cold following a cold start (and varies by oil temperature, oil type, and age of filter). Once the oil starts warming up the valve closes and the oil once again flows through the filter element. Given the oil flowing through the bypass is already well filtered, a few minutes of unfiltered flow is completely irrelevant in regards to long term engine life.

imidazol97 · November 2011

Shipo and others?

I have a 2008 Cobalt with 35000 miles. The oil has been in for 1 year and 3,000 miles. The oil is Pennzoil Platinum synthetic 5w-30 and the filter is a PureOne filter.

Should I change the filter or just put in fresh oil--GM requires oil change every 1 year.

Most driving was 80 mile trips on interstate and 6 mile commutes to his job downtown Columbus. Very little was short trip driving.

texases · November 2011

I'd change the filter, too, just to simplify my life. No need to remember any details, oil and filter once/year. If you're going through a change anyway, might as well do the filter for small additional time/cost.

As for Ford's 5000 mile recommendation if the OLM fails, it's by necessity a VERY conservative recommendation, suitable for all driving types, including lots of short trips. It doesn't reflect the normal expected life under 'regular duty' conditions.

roadburner · November 2011

I'd run Pennzoil Platinum(or any other quality synthetic) for 2 years if warranty coverage wasn't a concern. That's what I do with my Jeep Wrangler.

roadburner · November 2011

Every oil analysis I have ever sent out has come back with levels exceeding normal amounts of wear, much of which is typically aggravated by the bypass valve in the filter (or the block in some cases) as having been forced open when the filter became too heavily loaded and therefore unfiltered oil was circulating.

That has been the exact opposite of my experience, but then I maintain all my vehicles to a high standard.

When a customers car comes in the door with no oil showing on the dipstick and subsequently getting to watch maybe two quarts draining from the pan and even with it being warm/hot it's still clearly thicker than what is supposed to be in there, exactly how does an oil analysis tell anything that experience hasn't already observed?

If you are dealing with the typical moronic car owner on a daily basis -fortunately I don't have to- then I would agree. However, that situation is entirely different from the case of a conscientious owner who wants to monitor the mechanical health of his/her car's engine and wants to determine an optimum OCI.

shipo · November 2011

Change it. Why? Unless I miss my guess, you're still in the warranty period.

stvtom1 · April 2012

I have heard that the compression fittings that leak can be cut off and the hoses repaired with compression clamps. Any one have any thoughts on this?
Thanks
Stvtom1

texases · April 2012

Whatever you're clamping the hose onto has to have some kind of bump or 'barb' to hold the hose on with the clamp. Just clamping the hose onto a straight tube isn't a good idea.

Engine Oil - A slippery subject Part 2

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles