this has turned out to be a great thread. I sent my first sample to Blackstone over two weeks ago and I have not heard from them yet. Nothing emailed and they didn't charge my credit card either.
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
04½ Oil Analysis Results
- Thread starter KBertetto
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
- Status
The first sample I sent to Blackstone took a month to get there. I was torqued off bad about it. The mail system treated is as hazardous waste which slowed it down alot in transit. So now I put the sample in their mailer with all the info and stuff and then I put that in a small box with the lable of just BLACKSTONE and their address on it. I don't tell the post office what it is. Take 2 days to get there. I send out on Friday and I have my answeres by Monday night. 
I'm probably going to get ambushed for this but what the heck... .
Oil sampling and analysis has been around for a long time but has only recently surfaced in automotive circles. It was a common practice in Military Aviation for decades but the practice has been discontinued, and I completely agree with the logic behind it.
The practice was stopped solely due to cost verses benefit. Analysis reports contained a host of information but certain questions were finally asked. Questions like...
How many engines actually fail due to oil related failures? After ruling out oil pumping system failures, which aren't exactly "lubricant" problems, the answer was unknown. In other words, the failure is almost always traceable back to a component failure or gross human error. We're told things like "an abnormally high silicone content can be indicative of poor air filtration" While this statement is true, it leaves out several important factors. For starters, many modern Diesel fuel additives contain silicates and I believe "Slick Diesel" (a component of Power Service) is one of them. Secondly, and I believe more importantly, Diesel engines were lasting 200k, 350k, and even half a million miles, long before oil analysis ever came along so the question begs asking...
Just because component "X" was found in my oil and is higher than a set standard that was achieved under controlled circumstances, does this mean that my engine is going to fall out? Likely not but what will the average owner do with this information? Change his oil... change his brand of oil... change his filter... reexamine his choice of air filtration... essentially, spend money to buy stuff in an attempt to control the contaminant, eliminate it, or flush it regularly enough to keep it within acceptable limits (which requires further costly analysis). In other words, oil analysis forces (well... bad word) an operator to increase their operating cost through parts, materials, supplies, and labor (in the form of oil, filters, analysis, and time) in an effort to avoid increasing operating costs through replacing worn parts. Parts that may never fail during the life of the machine regardless of what compounds are found in the oil. Essentially, eliminating oil analysis for aircraft engines saved the military millions, if not billions, in annual operating expenses yet engines and components fail at the same rate now, as they did when the oil was being analyzed.
This line of thinking didn't have a name when A/C engine oil analysis was discontinued but it does have one now, and is known as RCM (reliablility centered maintenance). A basic philosophy of RCM is that it's very often cheaper, over the life of a component/engine/platform etc. , to operate that component until it fails, eliminating costly inspections and procedures, some of which create more problems than they solve.
Has anyone ever heard the phrase... 50% of our maintenance is responsible for 50% of our maintenance? It's been proven true more times than I can count.
Before anyone yells BS... my company specializes in RCM. We have numerous lucrative DOD aerospace contracts and save the government billions in operating expenses. If a client told me they had an oil analysis program for one of their platforms, they would quickly be told to discontinue it.
Fire extinguisher ready
Oil sampling and analysis has been around for a long time but has only recently surfaced in automotive circles. It was a common practice in Military Aviation for decades but the practice has been discontinued, and I completely agree with the logic behind it.
The practice was stopped solely due to cost verses benefit. Analysis reports contained a host of information but certain questions were finally asked. Questions like...
How many engines actually fail due to oil related failures? After ruling out oil pumping system failures, which aren't exactly "lubricant" problems, the answer was unknown. In other words, the failure is almost always traceable back to a component failure or gross human error. We're told things like "an abnormally high silicone content can be indicative of poor air filtration" While this statement is true, it leaves out several important factors. For starters, many modern Diesel fuel additives contain silicates and I believe "Slick Diesel" (a component of Power Service) is one of them. Secondly, and I believe more importantly, Diesel engines were lasting 200k, 350k, and even half a million miles, long before oil analysis ever came along so the question begs asking...
Just because component "X" was found in my oil and is higher than a set standard that was achieved under controlled circumstances, does this mean that my engine is going to fall out? Likely not but what will the average owner do with this information? Change his oil... change his brand of oil... change his filter... reexamine his choice of air filtration... essentially, spend money to buy stuff in an attempt to control the contaminant, eliminate it, or flush it regularly enough to keep it within acceptable limits (which requires further costly analysis). In other words, oil analysis forces (well... bad word) an operator to increase their operating cost through parts, materials, supplies, and labor (in the form of oil, filters, analysis, and time) in an effort to avoid increasing operating costs through replacing worn parts. Parts that may never fail during the life of the machine regardless of what compounds are found in the oil. Essentially, eliminating oil analysis for aircraft engines saved the military millions, if not billions, in annual operating expenses yet engines and components fail at the same rate now, as they did when the oil was being analyzed.
This line of thinking didn't have a name when A/C engine oil analysis was discontinued but it does have one now, and is known as RCM (reliablility centered maintenance). A basic philosophy of RCM is that it's very often cheaper, over the life of a component/engine/platform etc. , to operate that component until it fails, eliminating costly inspections and procedures, some of which create more problems than they solve.
Has anyone ever heard the phrase... 50% of our maintenance is responsible for 50% of our maintenance? It's been proven true more times than I can count.
Before anyone yells BS... my company specializes in RCM. We have numerous lucrative DOD aerospace contracts and save the government billions in operating expenses. If a client told me they had an oil analysis program for one of their platforms, they would quickly be told to discontinue it.
Fire extinguisher ready
Last edited:
AMassaro said:
I don't disagree with your logic at all. The point of the info I posted was more directed towards the results of that testing, and the typical reaction to those results. Meaning... that I would NOT waste $40 worth of engine oil just because an oil analysis report shows increased levels of something as compared to my old oil. A lot of guys are draining their freshly installed oil based on the results of those reports under the assumption that the results are the oils fault.
Last edited:
My opinion comes from the environmental background where we go through several thousands of analytical samples a year... the lab isn't always right.
I have seen it time and time again... lab sends us results, THEN we have people who specialize in looking those results over for flaws... very rarely do we see data come in that is 100% correct... and this is from multiple labs... not just one. I have seen data that, if not validated, would have indicated contamination when it was nothing more than a dirty machine they ran the sample through...
And, oil serves three primary purposes... it lubricates and cools AND it keeps contaminants in suspension so that when oil is changed the contaminants go with it... so, they might be seeing nothing more than the oil actually doing it's job... suspending dirt, and protecting the engine in the meantime.
I do see where looking for other things like coolant in the oil can be very good for preventative maintenance...
Just some food for thought,
steved
I have seen it time and time again... lab sends us results, THEN we have people who specialize in looking those results over for flaws... very rarely do we see data come in that is 100% correct... and this is from multiple labs... not just one. I have seen data that, if not validated, would have indicated contamination when it was nothing more than a dirty machine they ran the sample through...
And, oil serves three primary purposes... it lubricates and cools AND it keeps contaminants in suspension so that when oil is changed the contaminants go with it... so, they might be seeing nothing more than the oil actually doing it's job... suspending dirt, and protecting the engine in the meantime.
I do see where looking for other things like coolant in the oil can be very good for preventative maintenance...
Just some food for thought,
steved
steved said:
I agree completely. Iron content is another indicator that is often misinterpreted ... ..... as "wear". Steel parts in contact with each other, do not produce iron as a byproduct. They produce... well... little baby steels:-laf Seriously though, they produce steel fuzz or dust. Iron comes from only 2 places... the element itself, or from a compound such as steel that contains it, and releases it into the oil through the oxidation process. In other words... rust. Because of humidity and temperature variations hour to hour, day to day, and season to season, iron content will fluctuate for no readily apparent reason. I'd be willing to wager that they fluctuate in unison with humdity levels.
Water + oil + combustion byproducts and dirt = electrolytes
Electrolytes + oxygen + steel = oxidation
I'd go so far as to say that engines operated in very low humidity environments would show lower iron levels as a trend across the board compared to the opposite.
Last edited:
BigGunZ and Steved have good points.
I might add that though oil anaysis might not be cost effective for routine maintance, it seems it would be useful for researching safe ways to extend oil changes. That is trying something "new" that doesn't have much history and data to back it up yet.
I might add that though oil anaysis might not be cost effective for routine maintance, it seems it would be useful for researching safe ways to extend oil changes. That is trying something "new" that doesn't have much history and data to back it up yet.
Last edited:
DBond said:
More good points.
I will add that if someone is testing something new like I do, I like to get the numbers. Once that is done, I feel its futile to keep doing it at every change.
I have never been in favor of long term oil use simply because I prefer to dump it every 10,000 to 15,000 kilometers and I have never taken the time to explore the benefits.
Scotty
When I installed my spinner, the oil sampling was the only method that was avalaible to me or anyone else that will allow me to figure out what the base line is and to monitor for a tangible benifit if any. My goal is to try and go 50,000 to 60,000 between oil changes. To get there I will need to use oil testing at first to keep a sharp eye on what is happening to my engine. After all I am my own warranty station now 
Once I prove to myself that the system installed works the way I think should work and prove that it is a benifit for extended oil changes, then I can think about droping the oil sample program. But droping the oil testing in my case will only happen after I verify that everything is working and is reliable.
Once I prove to myself that the system installed works the way I think should work and prove that it is a benifit for extended oil changes, then I can think about droping the oil sample program. But droping the oil testing in my case will only happen after I verify that everything is working and is reliable.
Last edited:
Ok, I am trying to make sense out of several seemingly conflicting pieces of information I have picked up...
Starting with the "600-610" CTD, engine oil gets very black very soon after a change.
This dark color is from incresed soot in the oil, probably a result of emmisions changes.
Soot in the oil can increase engine wear.
BUT, also starting with the "600-610" CTD engine, the recommended oil change doubled to 7500/15,000 miles.
So do I have my "facts" correct, and if so why the extended oil changes with the sooty oil?
Starting with the "600-610" CTD, engine oil gets very black very soon after a change.
This dark color is from incresed soot in the oil, probably a result of emmisions changes.
Soot in the oil can increase engine wear.
BUT, also starting with the "600-610" CTD engine, the recommended oil change doubled to 7500/15,000 miles.
So do I have my "facts" correct, and if so why the extended oil changes with the sooty oil?
amsoilman
Staff Alumni
DBond said:
Soot is only going to cause damage if it becomes large particles. I'm talking in the 5-20 micron size. (it has been established within the industry, particles between 5-20 micron is where abnormal wear takes place)
Soot particles are much smaller than this, less than . 025 micron. When the smaller particles aglomerate (form together) and become larger than 5 micron, then you would have to worry.
The present oil I have in my truck now has over 45,000 on it, using a bybass oil filter with a high quality synthetic, and the soot level is 0. 02 ppm. Just had it tested.
By the time a regular oil/with regular filters is changed, the soot level should be well below 5 micron, unless the engine is severely over fueled.
Hope this helps,
Wayne
amsoilman
You are correct with the 15,000 recommened change by the manufacture. I was doing mine at 7,500, but I want to get rid of the soot. Soot is a wear component. The formulation of oils now is much better than just a few years ago. It would be interesting to see the manufactures testing methods and data on engine wear with regards to oil.
DBond said:
Mostly using oils not rated for diesels or poor quality oils.
Interestingly enough, I had a 7. 3 Navistar that I ran Mobil 1 in for the life of it (175k miles). M1 does not carry a CI rating. This engine was slightly overfueled it's entire life, ( I had the pump cranked up and it was a smoker) rarely used any fuel additives, and had oil that looked like tar at the 5k change interval I was using. It also breathed through a K&N and aftermarket turbo for 110k miles of it's life. I changed the fuel filter maybe twice. When I traded the truck, it used no measurable amount of oil and ran perfectly. I'm very confident that the engine would have eventually seen 250k miles and possibly more if the rest of the truck wasn't falling apart around it.
By all indicators, and given what I know now, my Ford was slightly abused yet it performed and acted as a diesel should... long life, good mileage, with minimal maintenance..... it's hard not to wonder if soot is really that much of an issue.
hazw8st said:
Ha. I've been wanting to come back here too. I want to expirement with some actual numbers to see, for example... ...
If you run Cummins recommended oil, at the 10k service interval for 200k miles, what the cost would be verses extending drain intervals to 20, 30, even 50k miles, considering the cost in parts... ie, spinner filters, bypass filters, and oil analysis to see if extended drain intervals are worth it over the long term.
amsoilman
Staff Alumni
BigGunZ said:
Here you are, but done at 4,000 mile intervals. This was done in 1997, so the costs may be a bit diffferent now. The conventional oil used for this comparison was a synthetic. (Cummins Blue) Had it been a petrolium based oil like Rotella, the difference would have been very different!
100,000 Miles traveled
Normal oil change interval 4,000 miles
Based on oil capacity of 11 Quarts
Conventional
25 Changes X 11 = 275 Qts. /68. 7 Gals.
69 Gal @ $ 8. 54 = $ 589. 26 (Cummins Blue)
25 Oil Filters @ $9. 00 = $225. 00
TOTAL COSTS = $ 814. 26
Amsoil
1 Change X 11= 11 Qts. /2. 75 Gals.
3 Gal @ $18. 20 = $ 54. 60
1 By-pass oil system = $159. 00
3 By-pass spin-on filters = $84. 00
3 Full Flow Filters = $50. 70
10 Analysis @ $10. 50 = $105. 00
12 Qts Make up oil @ $55. 00 = $ 55. 20
TOTAl COSTS= $508. 50
Difference $ 814. 26 Conventional oil Change $ 508. 50 Amsoil system
$305. 76 savings in Material only!
COSTS are all Retail
The BIG thing is the fact of the oil analysis! This tells the internal condition of the Engine, as well as any contaminants, such as fuel, water, glycol, acids, or dirt.
This was an actual comparison between my 94' CTD and a friends 94' CTD.
Wayne
amsoilman
Last edited:
Thanx for the info amsoilman. You've obviously done your homework and nothing works better than real world testing. One thing that may not be obvious to everyone, is that your info reinforces the notion that the "cost vs. benefit" factor depends largely on how you use your beast, and what year it is.
An 05 using maint. sched. "A", has an oil change interval of 15K miles. An 05 using schedule "B" uses 7500 miles. I haven't done the math but I would guess that the HPCR's are comparable in operating cost to the extended drain interval of your system. Personally, (well at least from an "old-school" mentality) 15K on factory recommended oil seems excessive but I'm open to change. I think I'd be more concerned about corrosive compounds moreso than any other factor on an extended drain program.
What are your thoughts on this? For example, has there been any testing on the effects of PH variation (obviously considering that PH doesn't always tell the whole story when talking corrosion)
An 05 using maint. sched. "A", has an oil change interval of 15K miles. An 05 using schedule "B" uses 7500 miles. I haven't done the math but I would guess that the HPCR's are comparable in operating cost to the extended drain interval of your system. Personally, (well at least from an "old-school" mentality) 15K on factory recommended oil seems excessive but I'm open to change. I think I'd be more concerned about corrosive compounds moreso than any other factor on an extended drain program.
What are your thoughts on this? For example, has there been any testing on the effects of PH variation (obviously considering that PH doesn't always tell the whole story when talking corrosion)
- Status
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
