You are totally wrong with the topic of statistics. But then again, if you're not schooled in them and make a living with them, you're not likely to understand it anyway. My article was about statistical normalcy and how to understand UOAs in terms of wear. It is completely acceptable, and even advisable, to remove some data points that come from abnormal conditions such as: a bearing failure; poor rebuild that must be redone; abusive conditions not representative of sane maintenance; chemical reactions that settle after chelation; etc.

You're also wrong about the TCB; clearly you didn't purchase or read the SAE study. The TCB gets thicker as it ages; it does NOT get "worn away" by moving parts, as you claim. They only time it is minimal is at the front end of an OCI; when the detergents and ZDDP alter the chemistry and strip it away. As the OCI matures, the TCB gets thicker and no amount of moving parts removes it! You CLEARLY did not buy/read the SAE article; it goes into great detail as to the formation and lifecycle of the TCB. If you have access to a credible source that would counter the Ford study, then please let me know so I can read it fully; put up the link. But until you do as such, your hypothesis is based on a failed theory with zero proof of concept.

You also don't understand my article, even though you may have read it, because "macro analysis" takes into account the objections you state. The macro data IS REAL WORLD DATA. My studies of UOAs are from REAL WORLD OPERATIONS ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA!

I don't know biology well, but I also don't try to tell a PHD biologist that I don't believe them when they speak about things they are trained in. I'm not an electrical circuit designer, but I can understand the effects of the end results, even if I cannot fully understand the schematics in detail. My point here? I do statistical process quality control for a living. I've had a few lube-related articles published. You're welcome to question me, but I summarily dismiss your objections when you cannot bring any credible counter-points of fact, rather than just wordy objections based on mythology and opinion.

There's a sign that hangs in my office which reads:
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

I’m clearly not schooled in statistics. Never claimed to be, but the world is full of people like me. People that actually work away from a desk and make things actually work in the field day after day, and understand that theories often don’t work in the real world.
As for the TCB thing, if you’re so sure about that theory, drain all the oil out of your engine and drive it for a month or a year or whatever. According to your theory, no harm will come to it. Go ahead. I dare you to put your money where your mouth is and test your theory in the real world,not on your computer screen.
I’m not trying to tell you how to gather your statistics and manipulate them to meet the results you want to or have been hired to produce.
You’re right, you can’t make me understand your little corner of academia, mainly because I have no interest in understanding it. In the same way, I can’t make you understand that the way things work in the field because to you what happens in the field is irrelevant because it doesn’t coincide with what your calculations tell you.
I could put two identical trucks in -40 weather side by side, one with synthetic oil and the other with heavy Dino oil. When the one with synthetic started up and the one with Dino didn’t, you wouldn’t believe it despite having the evidence right before you. And you wouldn’t believe it because your computer tells you that statistically it can’t happen.
In the field that’s what we call someone being so smart they’re stupid.

 

I guess some good questions to ask would be who paid for said statistical research on motor oil and what was their reason for wanting the report? If it was Ford and ConocoPhillips than they would definitely have an agenda and want the report to have a certain conclusion. I'm not saying this happened, but all we know about this is what we have read in said report and on this thread. It all may be above board, but if skewed it wouldn't be the first time in fact such research reports probably lean in the employers favor more often than not.
To the author of the oil report, I don't know you and you may be a fine fellow, but your post comes off as if you are talking down to the rest hear. You may not be doing this on purpose and may be more intelligent than most here myself included, but the most intelligent people I have met in my life were smart enough to express themselves so that the people around them could understand the knowledge they were trying to impart. If you don't do this it seems to rest of us that you are trying to hide the truth behind all the stats, kind of like attorneys do with legalese.
I'm in no way trying to insult you or inpugn your integrity.
Peace
Mark

 

cdnfireman, you just don't understand; a lot of information you're missing.

First of all, I'm not an "academic" class-room type person. I have a Mech Engr degree and I do statistical process quality control for a living; that's true. But I cut my teeth early in my career working at Ford as a maintenance foreman for almost a decade. At various times I've been involved with everything from shift work in the vehicle maintenance garage, to power-house operations, to waste treatment processing, to massive air-handler HVAC systems, to large machining transfer systems, coolant systems, and about everything with a bearing, gearbox or motor. I also was a supervisor in both machining and assembly operations. Plus, being a "gear-head", I've torn down my fair share of all manner of engines from small OPE up to large diesel tractors, gas cars, etc. I'm no stranger to the "real" world of how things work. For you to imply I'm just a theory-guy is completely wrong. I live in the real world, just as you do, and I have plenty of hands-on experience to back up my education. I get my hands dirty with grease and oil nearly every weekend, working on my stuff or someone else's.

The TCB is shown to the the CONTROLLING factor of wear rates. I never, ever said it was the ONLY thing. Again - you take things out of context. I was speaking of start-up wear; the TCB is present during the first few seconds BEFORE oil pressure film builds up. You cannot credit a lube for an oil film that is not present. What is proven in the Ford/Conoco oil study is that fresh oil changes destroy the TCB, and as the OCIs mature, the TCB creates a barrier that controls wear rates, down to nearly non-existent. For you to suggest that I run an engine with no oil for month, only goes to show your complete ignorance of the situation. CLEARLY YOU DID NOT BUY AND READ THE SAE STUDY, SO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM EMBARRASSING YOURSELF FURTHER.


Additionally, you reiterated a point I already made. I CLEARLY described how a lower-vis lube will be an aid in uber cold starts, in a previous post. I said that the two benefits syn lubes will offer are longer OCIs and cold starts in EXTREME conditions, typically for older IDI diesel engines. But this thread is about a 6.2L modern fuel injected gas engine! My point is accurate for the topic at hand! I stated that in terms of WEAR RATES, a syn is not going to give "better" protection in uber-cold starts; I have the data to back that up with substantial credibility. The distinction is that of "starting ease" versus "wear rates". I agree that a syn may make a difference in ease of start-up in some limited scenarios. I disagree that a syn will provide less wear at start up; thousands upon thousands of UOAs prove this fact. How easily something starts is completely different from what wear occurs during that start. Do you not understand the distinction I make?

Simply put, I took my education and training, combined them with my field observations and maintenance experience, and wrote an article that shows how REAL WORLD ENGINE WEAR is to be viewed as "normal" across broad applications.


Ignorant people don't know things.
Arrogant people don't want to know things.
You said it yourself; you have no interest in understanding it. Hence, you never will.



.

 

oh yeah...

I bet his dad can beat-up your dad!




Said in jest with a goal of trying to defuse the back and forth.

 

Your points are valid. I didn't start out being rude, but I find myself irritated when I try to help inform and educate folks and they just cannot (or more appropriately will not) make an effort to rise out of the muck. I'm not immune to a good debate. I will rise, or lower, my content to the level presented.

Typical of most folks, some here want to argue about things they have no real experience/education in, and think I'm being snooty for trying to help out. I'll bet you my $100 to your $1 that no one here (except me) involved with this thread has bought the SAE study, but that does not stop them from commenting on it, as if they know/understand what it proves and disproves. It's hard for me to take anyone seriously that wants to argue about something they've not taken the time to read and understand. I wasn't born smart; I had to learn and educate myself. Knowledge and intelligence cannot be born into a person; they must be gained from effort.

As a confession, I am a reformed synthetic lube junkie. I used to think that syn lubes were the "best" for every application, regardless of what that situation was. But then my life experiences, along with detailed application of education, combined to enlighten me to the real truth in how things work in the lube world.

As for the Ford/Conoco study, their intent of the study is clearly expressed in the study itself. They were trying to understand the effects of longer OCIs in regard to wear rates. What they discovered is that wear rates drop as the OCI matures. The test lubes and mechanical engine components were studied from real world taxi service. Looking for the cause of this phenomenon, they built there work on other previous studies (cited therein). The reality is that the TCB controls wear more than does things such as viscosity, etc. They measured the thickness of the TCB, plotted against OCI duration, tracking wear metals and other UOA criteria such as viscosity, etc. TCB showed correlation to wear rates whereas other inputs to the phenomenon do not! There was no "agenda" here in terms of marketing for Ford or Conoco; they were not setting out to sell more oil. They were trying to understand the effects of drain intervals on wear rates. The only "agenda" they had was to learn about results. Consequently, we've seen an extension of OEM OCIs from Ford (and others) because the old mentality of "more is better" (more oil changes = less wear) is clearly WRONG!!!!!!

My oil study (the "normalcy" of UOAs) had no agenda to prove. I set out to understand and show what is "normal" in engine wear. I had no bias to one side or the other. I simply let the data develop it's natural path using sound, common statistical process means. My oil study was not "paid" for at all; I wrote it as an information piece for BITOG, as a contribution to the knowledge base. After Noria became aware of it, I was asked for permission to publish it, to which I gave permission while retaining rights to the study and it's content. Neither BITOG nor Noria paid me for the work; I did it on my own to bolster the understanding of UOAs for the general public. I have other articles published regarding UOAs; how they are processed.

It just so happens that the the SAE Ford/Conoco study proved that wear rates drop as the OCI matures. It used taxi service lubes and expensive equipment to measure the TCB and tracked it's effects. My study uses literally many thousands of real world UOAs, taken from all manner of applications, and proves that wear rates are generally unaffected by lube base stock, and that wear rates drop as the OCI matures. In other words, two different studies, done several years apart, using different techniques and processes, came to the same conclusion. When you have independent studies demonstrate the same results, it's OK to conclude that the results are likely credible.

I'm not against having a healthy debate, but if someone wants to denounce my work, and ridicule it, then I ask that they bring a logical mantra to the conversation, and bring real facts and data. Cite one's sources, link the studies, etc. Otherwise, I'll just summarily dismiss the contender as a goof-ball.

Do you believe that syn lubes make for less wear in cold weather starts? Fine by me. But where's the PROOF? What SAE or other study do you have to prove it? Don't regurgitate marketing hype and internet mythology to me; that's not credible proof. I have put forth TWO separate and independent oil studies that prove conclusively that viscosity and bast stock have little, if any, input into wear rates. The SAE study goes deep into proving how the TCB affects this result. My study goes deep into proving that these results are not unique or singular; they happen nearly everywhere, all the time.

Got a different opinion? Fine by me. PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM WITH FACTS AND DATA. Don't just blabber on about what your daddy taught you after guzzling down decades of marketing gibberish.


Mark - your point is not lost on me. Peace right back at ya! I'm not "mad" at anyone, but I do get irritated when I put up good data and cite credible sources, and all I get back is childish taunts. Frequently I get asked questions that have answers CLEARLY already defined in the body of the SAE study, and my study; indicating that folks don't bother to read and understand presumably because their bias prevents learning without prejudice.

 

Wow. Clearly you’re the smartest guy in the room, wherever you go. It wouldn’t matter what I said, as you’re only interested in listening until you can tell the person you’re interacting with how qualified and smart you are.
You take your book smarts and education and use them to convince yourself that no other position or opinion is of any value. I’ve seen multiple failures of equipment in sub zero temperatures,internal combustion engines, centrifugal pumps, large valves, and electric motors, all lubrication related.
None of these would have been included in your studies because there’s no need to analyze an engine that has its top end destroyed from a lack of oil. The failure mechanism is obvious. But to you,because it wasn’t included in your meta analysis model, it can’t happen, and anyone that says it did or witnessed it is uneducated, ignorant, arrogant and an embarrassment to himself.
So, get back to me, recite your resume, tell me how smart you are, and explain to me in your natural condescending way how things that don’t fit your analysis can’t happen. You are after all, the final word in all things lubrication

 

I run full synthetic in all my vehicles whether it calls for it or not. I also follow the manual for change intervals. Do what allows you to sleep well at night.....the only opinion that matters is your own.....

 

So dnewton....I must have missed it when are we supposed to change oil....5000 miles?

 

Oil changes are determined via two means ...
1) OEM determined
2) owner determined

If you follow OEM, just realize they are predicated on miles or time, and are ultra conservative as a means of protecting the OEM warranty risks. Data proves that overly conservative oil changes do not improve wear rates, and in fact can INCREASE wear rates.

If you determine your own OCI schedule, you can either "guess" using mythology and rhetoric, or "know" using UOAs.


If under warranty coverage, I typically recommend the OEM schedule, only because it's less likely to cause issues should a warranty issue arise. Whatever the manual says, follow it.

But you don't need super-duper lubes to get there. The manuals typically state that syns or semi-syns are not required for operation; only requirement is lubes meeting Ford specs (of which there are a lot of dino lubes that are licensed to the 5w-20 and 5w-30 specs). For example, this is stated directly in my Grand Marquis owner's manual:
"Use of synthetic or synthetic blend motor oil is not mandatory. Engine oil need only meet the requirements of Ford specification ..." (page 257)
A statement like this, or similar to it, is in every Ford owner's manual somewhere, if you look hard enough. They don't want to point this out with big emphasis, because they want you to buy their Motorcraft branded products. But, the reality is that the FORD SPEC (wss-m2c945 ... or whatever it may be) is what is "required" for warranty to cover you without OEM objection rights. If you look at many motor oil websites (Mobil, Valvoline, SOPUS, etc) you'll see plenty of conventional oils bearing the official Ford license spec for the appropriate applications. That means the dino lubes passed Ford tests, just as did any syn or semi-syn. Even if you are running an EB turbo engine, if you use a Ford licensed lube, it is covered under warranty and passed all Ford's requirements. Ford "recommends" stuff that puts money in their pockets. Ford "requires" lubes that meet their specs, for warranty to be implied. Nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for diesel oils. As long as they pass Ford's spec, and are licensed (as many dino oils are), then they are 100% approved, as much as any syn lube, for use in a PS diesel.

There have been folks who run longer OCIs while under warranty, but they also do UOAs. That would go a long way to proving one's position for any claim, but the delays may be longer than some would want to tolerate.

 

So if I'm supposed to change my oil at 7500 miles but instead I'm conservative and change it at 5000k it's going to increase my motors wear rate? That makes no sense.

 

Thank you for that insightful, detailed, credible basis for your opinion.

Why bother actually having a debate on facts and data, when you can blabber on with your opinions?

I asked for you to counter my position with credible links to study data, articles, etc. You put up nothing but more rhetoric.

So you find disdain in folks who have engineering education and use theory backed with science, eh?

- Just how is it you think we got to the moon? Did was just back-yard engineer our way into space?

- How is it that we continually have advances in medicine? Do we just brew crap up in the kitchen and slather on a suave hoping it will cure a disease?

- Why is it that the only way to accurately measure volumes and areas, figuring areas under a curve, to engineer buildings and bridges and tunnels, is to use geometry, metalurgy and calculus? I suppose you could span the distance across the Potomac river with some hill-billy welding and scrap metal?


I summarily dismiss you as both ignorant and arrogant.

 

Forums 'kill me'...

The OP asks two questions: oil type recommendation, and suggestions on what to ask dealer to look at during his first visit.

Fast forward to today, and the discussion is just a couple of dudes 'measuring'!

I doubt he even subscribes to this thread since no one is really helping him any more.

 

You have to be correct, because you have a degree. Like I said, you’re the smartest guy in the room, wherever you go.
And engineers are always correct. They never screw up, they just have “ oversights” like all the ones that caused catastrophic failures and loss of life in the space programs ( your example). And medical science has never had anything but perfection ( the list of examples there is endless, again your example)
Bridges, tunnels, aircraft, buildings etc have never failed because of faulty engineering. Those failures that cost the lives of astronauts, pilots, medical patients and regular users of infrastructure have never occurred because of faulty/ poor engineering. They probably occurred because us “ ignorant and arrogant “ users of the technology were too stupid to use it properly.
Apparently all of us “ hillbillies “ should just shut our mouths and gape in wonder as Demi-gods like you wander through our world reminding us of your superiority.

 

How about Motorcraft Synthetic? They now make it in a 6 gallon bag and Rock Auto carries it for a decent price. Anyone running Motorcraft Synthetic? I have a 2017 F-250 with 2800mi and will be doing an oil change and right now leaning towards the blend since that is what I have ran in all my other vehicles. Any input on the motorcraft full synthetic is greatly appreciated.