Oil analysis with synthetic/M1

[M&EM]

Have been using M-1_10/30 synthetic and M-111 filter for last 2 years. Changes were done at between 4 and 6 k miles since then with filters changed every 3k miles. At 46k miles had an oil analysis done for the first time.

On this first sample, the oil was used for 4900 miles and had 2 qts added during that mileage interval.

All readings looked good except for Iron and Copper. Iron and Copper were at 30 and 70 PPM and 2.5 and 5 times higher respectively then the averages for that engine type according to Blackstone's data.

The TBN was at 4.3 which indicates oil active properties were still usefull.

Blacstone's comments offered no explanation on these 2 items so I called them.

Basically the fact that these elements were present in the oil represented wear factors to be concerned with. The only reference he made of application related causes was very high RPM and hard working engines.

To me this sounds like: >>>pushing 4kRPM for long uphill hauling of GCVWR loaded chassis LIKE in MH..

Recommendation was to reduce interval to 3000 miles to have less accumulation and exposure time to those levels of elements. I asked what benefit the use of synthetics had on this source of wear.

Non were offered.

Instead he offered that no one at his lab uses synthetic engine oils.

As for me, since I will be returning to a 3000 mile schedule, I see no benefit to the synthetic engine oil either.

Doesn't represent much more maintenance time underneath since chassis lubes need the 3000 mile service any way. Cost savings could even pay for additional analysis.

Marty

[M&EM]

Have been using M-1_10/30 synthetic and M-111 filter for last 2 years. Changes were done at between 4 and 6 k miles since then with filters changed every 3k miles. At 46k miles had an oil analysis done for the first time.

On this first sample, the oil was used for 4900 miles and had 2 qts added during that mileage interval.

All readings looked good except for Iron and Copper. Iron and Copper were at 30 and 70 PPM and 2.5 and 5 times higher respectively then the averages for that engine type according to Blackstone's data.

The TBN was at 4.3 which indicates oil active properties were still usefull.

Blacstone's comments offered no explanation on these 2 items so I called them.

Basically the fact that these elements were present in the oil represented wear factors to be concerned with. The only reference he made of application related causes was very high RPM and hard working engines.

To me this sounds like: >>>pushing 4kRPM for long uphill hauling of GCVWR loaded chassis LIKE in MH..

Recommendation was to reduce interval to 3000 miles to have less accumulation and exposure time to those levels of elements. I asked what benefit the use of synthetics had on this source of wear.

Non were offered.

Instead he offered that no one at his lab uses synthetic engine oils.

As for me, since I will be returning to a 3000 mile schedule, I see no benefit to the synthetic engine oil either.

Doesn't represent much more maintenance time underneath since chassis lubes need the 3000 mile service any way. Cost savings could even pay for additional analysis.

Marty

[Belgian]

I'm not totally sold on synthetic oil either.My main experience has been with conventional oils. Thinking back to my last two work trucks, both were 3/4 Chevy's with 5.7L (Ci) engines. I was religious about changing oil & filter at 3,000 miles. Truck # 1 had 215,000 miles when sold. Only internal changes was one rocker arm @ 40,000 miles. Truck #2 265,000 with no internal parts changed. Current truck 219,000 miles with no internal parts changed.
I have used oil analysis two times with other vehicles. One being my wifes Suburban, came back with trace coolant in the oil. The other report was on my Workhorse 8.1L, came back with high copper levels. I had run the oil for 6,000 miles though, which I won't do again. My next test will be on my current work truck with 219,000 miles, should be interesting to see the results.

[Full-Timers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M&EM:All readings looked good except for Iron and Copper. Iron and Copper were at 30 and 70 PPM and 2.5 and 5 times higher respectively then the averages for that engine type according to Blackstone's data.

The TBN was at 4.3 which indicates oil active properties were still usefull.Marty </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You stated the iron and copper amounts but not the size. If it got through the filter, I would say it is not that harmful and the logic of more frequent oil changes doesn't make sense.

I use Mobil-1 10W30 also but I do change mine at 3000 miles. My reason for using synthetic is less engine ware leading to longer engine life, which is stupid on my part because I probably won't keep the motorhome long enough to make a difference. It just makes me feel better.

[M&EM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Full-Timers:
If it got through the filter, I would say it is not that harmful and the logic of more frequent oil changes doesn't make sense.
I use Mobil-1 10W30 also but I do change mine at 3000 miles. My reason for using synthetic is less engine ware leading to longer engine life, which is stupid on my part because I probably won't keep the motorhome long enough to make a difference. It just makes me feel better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose by that logic it would be safe to have any quantity of any kind of impurity mineral or sand as long as it is small enough to pass thru the filter.

The gist of my conversation with Blackstone Lab tech leads me to believe that it(copper) is abrasive and wearing on mating parts in the engine particularly because it is not easily filtered. It just makes me feel better not accumulating AND circulating this stuff for more then 3000 miles. I just can't see the smarts to use synthetic.

We both seem to agree about keeping mh long enough to--not make a difference F-T

My plan is to:

Go back to dino product and continue use of M-111.
Change at 3000 miles OC, OF.
Not push harder then 3800RPM on any upgrade.
Lab test next couple of oil changes

All that said I feel better already

[rgrstndgby]

So is anyone curious as to where the copper is coming from, and does Blackstone offer any insite into that? Im sure that there is alot of copper alloyed into various metals inside an engine, but the first thing that comes to my mind is "copper backed" bearings. I really dont know if these are used in the 8.1, or what the appearance of that copper would indicate, but I'd be curious to know...rgr...

[M&EM]

Copper:
Bushing but not rod or crank bearing inserts.
Brass or bronze parts.

Iron:
steel parts like crank and cylinders.

There were no harmful contaminants found.

Blackstone Report states: " If you do any hard driving or racing that may explain it" referring to high copper and iron.

The only hard driving is hill climbing at up to 4000 RPM!

[exrench]

Just feed a few bits of iron chips from the dirty oil filter and there is the bearing material they found.You add some every time the oil is changed.

[Tom N]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M&EM:

Blackstone Report states: " If you do any hard driving or racing that may explain it" referring to high copper and iron.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My interpretation of "hard driving" is severe service. I've stated many time on iRV2 that Workhorse recommends 3000 mile oil changes for severe service. I've had many replies from synthetic users that they can go over 3000 miles (some as much as 10,000 miles) because they are using synthetic oil and some have even stated if using synthetic that they only have to change the filter. Not rational reasoning when 7 quarts of oil and a filter costs ~$20.

If I ever purchase a used gas coach I'll look for one that had the oil and filter changed at 3000 mile severe service intervals.

M&EM, in your opinion, do you think pumping up the horsepower with your reprogramming had any bearing on you high iron and copper analysis??? Do you think adding horsepower creates a larger load on the crank and rod bearings?? Or do you think adding horsepower will make your 8.1 wear less?? Or, in your opinion, there would be no effect in engine component wear??

-Tom

[M&EM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom N:
M&EM, in your opinion, do you think pumping up the horsepower with your reprogramming had any bearing on you high iron and copper analysis??? Do you think adding horsepower creates a larger load on the crank and rod bearings?? Or do you think adding horsepower will make your 8.1 wear less?? Or, in your opinion, there would be no effect in engine component wear??

-Tom </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom that is an interesting question and one I have more recently pondered over.

Given the questions to Blackstone and their response, I would be suspicious of those factors. I also believe that the higher RPM at heavy throttle is something I should/will use sparingly.

The first year, that would be summer of 06, I had the UP done At Brazel's place. I was hard pressed to be aware of more power until I started pushing the rpm up above where I normally go.

I quickly learned that 3800 or there about was a sweet spot and started to attack hill climbing with that RPM as an upper limit.
Prior to UP I rarely allowed the RPM above 3500 except as in grade compression braking.

I would say now with a fair number of miles and gallons consumed, There has been little or no apparent mpg gains, Pushing the engine to higher rpm and more power probably is not as good for longevity as not going to higher RPM. The tendency to use this perceived power is something I am conscious of.

On edit: I still feel that more torque/power is available at cruising speeds http://www.irv2.com/photopost/data/752/image0012.JPG and less shifting occurs on the less then mountainous roadways. The UP upgrade has added to my driving experience as many other add ons have.

Of course this is my opinion and not based on much more data then what this thread has offered.

[Jeepster47]

Marty, remember our conversation after arriving in Pendelton, OR., regarding performance and RPM through the Cascades. I went no more than 3800 RPMs at any point. Use Castrol 10/30 oil & AC 454 filter every 3,000 miles, and only down 1/2 qt. at change. Stock, with NO Banks or UP setup. Have considered UP over the past two years but never followed up. I feel the key is to keep the RPMs below 3800 and change oil & filter every 3,000 miles. Hope to see you in Quartzsite.

Ed

[Steady Eddie]

"..I also believe that the higher RPM at heavy throttle is something I should/will use sparingly.

The first year, that would be summer of 06, I had the UP done At Brazel's place. I was hard pressed to be aware of more power until I started pushing the rpm up above where I normally go.

I quickly learned that 3800 or there about was a sweet spot and started to attack hill climbing with that RPM as an upper limit.
Prior to UP I rarely allowed the RPM above 3500 except as in grade compression braking.

I would say now with a fair number of miles and gallons consumed, There has been little or no apparent mpg gains, Pushing the engine to higher rpm and more power probably is not as good for longevity as not going to higher RPM. The tendency to use this perceived power is something I am conscious of...
==========================
Marty--
Me too.
In the original Ultrapower Upgrade thread, IIRC,
there was posted a Chart/Graph of a Dyno Pull
on an Ultrapower-ed WCC from Brazel's Rv.
I cannot remember what torque was gained beyond
the OE level of peak torque at 3200 RPMs, if any. That said, and driving it like it was a Diesel Engined Rig, besides over the road speed,
what is to be gained by ANY over-peak-torque
revving?? The only yardstick I have to measure
by is my own set-up, and it has a third-gear rev
limit of 3500 RPMs. Built in. As it lugs down on a hill, and the speed falls off, towing the JGC, it'll downshift to third (only 4 speeds) at
51 MPH. At that time, the RPMs climb to 3500 and
NO amount of throttle increase gets any more revs.

It'll then "settle in" and grunt. If it lugs down anymore, it pulls down right to 3200 or
peak torque.

THEN--if it pulls all the way down to about 35 MPH, the Ally will select 2nd gear and THEN the RPMs can shoot way up.

[M&EM]

SE
is this it? http://www.irv2.com/photopost/data/752/image0012.JPG

[Steady Eddie]

That's it...I think...

The chart traces we are most interested in
are the "blue" and the "yellow" (the before
UP torque and the after UP torque).

The charts of the GM Powertrain Group are different in that the Brazel's Chart shows
Rear Wheel HP vs. Flywheel HP..but..peak torque
values at a given RPM, the "highest" points
should be the same or nearly so, I'd think?

Regardless, Brazel's Dyno don't lie. These are
very respectable numbers. The little boxes along
the bottom are in increments of 200 RPMs, I
believe, if you follow along the chart, I would expect peak torque for the OE (blue) trace to be at or near 3200 RPMs? But the peak is much lower. ? But it does match the torque peak of the AFTER UP yellow trace which is 2650 RPMs..?