Quote: Supton, exactly what are your numbers there trying to prove? I couldn't tell exactly from just reading it. Give me your hypothesis again please, and then show how the numbers prove, or disprove it. Thanks Man.
Sam
Sure. The hypothesis (which is not my theory, btw--I didn't come up with it) is that the additives in motor oils are not fully activated straight out of the bottle; but rather require a bit of heat and pressure to become fully active. I don't know why that is.
The oil testing in the link shows several wear metals, along with silicon. [The only way silicon can get into the motor is either through the air filter--and past the rings--or from an air leak letting dust into the crankcase. This same testing can indicate when an air filter requires changing.] A major source of Fe particles (ie, iron) would be from cylinder bore wear; while the other metals are more related to bearing wear. Used Oil Analysis (UOA) is seemingly a common way to determine when oil needs to changed, based upon testing of the motor for wear metals (or soot, in the case of diesels), or if some engine damage has occured (antifreeze in the oil in small amounts, high silicon indicating a vaccum leak or torn air filter, high brass count meaning bad cam bearings in this particular type of motor, etc). Persons can then determine their Oil Change Interval (OCI) based upon actual measurements of the oil, rather than a manufacturer's recommendation; this can be helpful for people who a) drive alot, b) use expensive oil, or c) have setups that are not OEM stock.
Now, as the various metals wear, they do create a range of particle sizes. Particles larger than say 40microns will get caught in the oil filter, while smaller particles have a large chance of staying in the oil, and very small particles remain suspended in the oil. Ideally, in a motor with a slow wear rate, all the particles will be small; while a motor with runaway wear will create both large and small particles in high numbers. Meaning, for a "good" motor, one would only expect to see Fe in the oil, while for a "bad" motor one would see much more Fe in the oil *and* silver specs in the filter.
As pointed out, virgin oil straight out of the bottle is not somehow magically void of all metal particles. The oil may have 1ppm of Fe; that is, 1 part per million, or 0.0001% of the oil is iron particles. Plus, once put into a motor, whatever old oil is in there will containminate the new oil somewhat. So, a baseline measurement is taken after a short while of running, to estabilish a proper "time zero" iron content for the oil. For this example, let's say we run the motor for 100 miles, then have the oil tested, and the oil is measured to have 2ppm of iron particles in it.
Now, if the motor is run for some time, we would expect total iron content to go up. So, let's say we drive for 1,000 miles, and Fe count goes up to 4ppm. If we subtract off the baseline, we find that an additional 2ppm of metal shavings was added to the oil. We drive another 1,000 miles, and total count increases to 5ppm. In this second 1,000 miles, the wear rate is less--instead of wearing at a rate of 2ppm/kmiles, the wear is lower at 1ppm/kmiles.
The next 1,000 miles may yield 5ppm of metal in the oil, meaning no wear occured. Finally, the last 1,000 miles may yield a count of 20ppm, meaning 15ppm/kmile of wear--which would indicate that it is time for an oil change, as the wear rates have gone up dramatically.
By doing multiple tests on the oil, we can see a wear rate for the motor, based upon how fast the iron content of the oil rises inbetween samples. The hypothesis is that, because the additive package requires time/heat/pressure/? in order to properly protect the motor, we would expect to see slightly higher wear rates right after an oil change, in excess of cold start wear or the wear from starting initially with a dry oil filter. Supposedly, this is born out in some SAE paper (which I have not seen nor have I been able to find even a title to); and the guy in the link is attempting to determine, based upon his own testing on just one car, to see if the effect is valid or not.
|
I do not buy a product just because they have a better sales pitch. I have to see proof first, esp. when it comes to my engine. Working in a diesel shop, I have seen that oil take severe punishment. 
Like you said, the word "paraffin" is used interchangably. Maybe they have found a way to keep the paraffin particles apart, to avoid sludge? After reading and researching though, I am impressed with Valvoline. I'll probably try it next. That, or the new Rotella 5W-40 synthetic oil.
