XXXXX Mile Oil Analysis

[Maximus Gladius]

@HooliganActual Not sure how technical a level 2 lab tech gets but we’re you one to dig deep into reports and provide opinions on component conditions to the customer or was that done above you?

Sponsored

 

[Lunentucker]

If you lived in Calgary, you’d have your lab test in 24 hours. It’s too bad you have to mail yours away. Are there no other labs besides Blackstone that operate in large city centres you can drive to and drop off?

Edmonton has 2 labs and can get samples shipped in a day there.

I don't mind the wait, and any "large city center" is at least an hour away, which makes life wonderful for us!
I don't mind the wait.

 

[Lunentucker]

As you've now done a few oil changes and a few oil analyses, you could make a reliability-based decision to perform an oil analysis only every 5000 miles (at least that's what I would do but you could go 3000 miles if not comfortable) and only change the oil when the indicators of the analysis indicate unfavorable viscosity changes, excessive wear particles, ingress of contaminants, breakdown of add pack, etc.

Not a bad suggestion, but I see the oil and filter as pretty cheap insurance.
I can't bring myself to rely upon the Jeep's internal oil life "monitor" at all. I see it as a simple timer and not much else. Perhaps someone can show me the part number for the sensor that's collecting viscosity and temperature data inside the system and relaying it to the computer. Until then I'm going with it's a digital alarm clock and nothing more.

 

[Maximus Gladius]

FWIW, in a prior life (I'm retired now) I was a Certified Level 2 Oil Analyst and ran my own analysis lab. Admittedly, my clients were industrial and as such we did not deal with oils that had the same add packs nor the risk of fuel/coolant/combustion contaminants but the premise is still the same.

As you've now done a few oil changes and a few oil analyses, you could make a reliability-based decision to perform an oil analysis only every 5000 miles (at least that's what I would do but you could go 3000 miles if not comfortable) and only change the oil when the indicators of the analysis indicate unfavorable viscosity changes, excessive wear particles, ingress of contaminants, breakdown of add pack, etc.

I had a 350Z when I was running the lab and had fun doing this. I would pull samples at 1000 miles and then base my oil changes on the same advice I would give clients. Interestingly enough, on that car and it's use case, it worked out to essentially every 5000 miles that I was changing the oil...LOL.

I would like to know from a “trend” point of view, which is better to cross check wear metal numbers? From a national average or from a fresh bottle?

If you assume like Blackstone and the lab tech bases his opinion from a room of others that may or may not maintain their components well, but we have an “average” from that room, how is that better than starting from the numbers from the fresh bottle that’s used?

 

[Lunentucker]

I would like to know from a “trend” point of view, which is better to cross check wear metal numbers? From a national average or from a fresh bottle?

If you assume like Blackstone and the lab tech bases his opinion from a room of others that may or may not maintain their components well, but we have an “average” from that room, how is that better than starting from the numbers from the fresh bottle that’s used?

I'm assuming that the people that who send in their oil samples for analysis are typically going to be like me, and tend to not be the ones who abuse oil life. Thus possibly skewing the average in the direction of less wear and harm?

 

[Maximus Gladius]

I'm assuming that the people that who send in their oil samples for analysis are typically going to be like me, and tend to not be the ones who abuse oil life. Thus possibly skewing the average in the direction of less wear and harm?

It leaves too much to be assumed (I.e those that love their components do oil analysis and maintain their vehicles, hence the national average numbers…)

But then there’s the population of “great maintainers”, like some parents that want their 16 year old to have their first reliable car that’s for sale and the kid wants to buy and will get an analysis of that well used high mileage vehicle that was abused and the coolant is dry and the engine uses oil…. and those numbers manipulate the national average.

Each component is unique to itself and the oil it uses. Going by the wear numbers of your neighbour doesn’t make sense. Cross checking the numbers from a fresh bottle of what you use, does. It removes all assumptions.

 

[HooliganActual]

@HooliganActual Not sure how technical a level 2 lab tech gets but we’re you one to dig deep into reports and provide opinions on component conditions to the customer or was that done above you?

At the time I was running the lab, I was the Senior Reliability Engineer (at the time I retired I was the company's Director of Maintenance & Reliability for all of North America). Back in that phase, I was certified at the same level as the techs that actually did the work but my "day-to-day" was not running the samples, rather interpreting the results beyond the obvious and then leveraging that against metallurgical knowns, etc. So in answer to the question, I was the top level "decision maker".

Not a bad suggestion, but I see the oil and filter as pretty cheap insurance.
I can't bring myself to rely upon the Jeep's internal oil life "monitor" at all. I see it as a simple timer and not much else. Perhaps someone can show me the part number for the sensor that's collecting viscosity and temperature data inside the system and relaying it to the computer. Until then I'm going with it's a digital alarm clock and nothing more.

I was not advocating the use of the built in sensor. I agree with you that it is likely no more accurate than my Gladiator's outside temperature sensor is at telling me the actual ambient outside temperature...however, on a side note, one of the instruments we used for testing oil viscosity was nothing more than a dielectric sensor that would test the current carrying capacity of the oil versus the known value of a neat (or new) sample of the same oil. It does work well enough (there are better more accurate methods) as a preliminary indicator and is likely what Jeep's built in sensor does. It was literally the first test we would run on a sample as a gross go/no-go test. If that test indicated "good", then we would perform a proper viscosity test. If it failed, we would recommend oil change based on that alone.

EDIT: I would wager that if Jeep's oil sensor works like I've suggested, then the sensor's oil life estimate is out the window if you are not using the Mopar P/N oil as the sensor would be calibrated to that fluid only. Any other fluid might have a different dielectric value and would be wrong at the first engine start...maybe

What I was saying is that you could reliably perform oil analysis at shorter intervals and allow the data to tell you when the oil needs to be changed. Like anything, Jeep's Engineers along with the Engineers of whatever oil company who's oil was used during the development and testing of the engines has built in a "safety factor" for oil changes. They may see that they can get 7500 miles out of the oil (based on the exact same oil analysis data that you are collecting) and then state the oil change frequency as 5000 miles just to be safe because they know that not every Jeep owner will perform oil analysis.

It wouldn't be at all outlandish to pull a sample every 3000 miles and have it analyzed and then based off of the resultant trends, determine whether an oil change is required or not. We would do this with machinery gearboxes in our facilities and were literally able to extend the oil change intervals by a significant margin. In one facility alone it was worth over $100K annually

I won't dispute the concept of cheap insurance but in the Reliability Engineering world there is another saying that we use and the saying is ironically used to indicate "bad mechanics/maintenance". We use it somewhat tongue in cheek: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Back in the '60's (and re-performed several times since), the major airlines, US Navy and Air Force did a massive study on airplane failures and determined 6 basic failure patterns known as "the bathtub curves". Literally what they found is that the most prevalent of the 6 failure patterns was NOT age related wearout, rather it was related to infant mortality (failure within a short period of being put into service). The major cause of the infant mortality was related, to improper installation, improper design, manufacturing defect, etc. So in other words, the old tried and true methodology of "open and inspect" every "X" days/weeks/months/etc. actually introduced failure as things didn't get put back together properly or it was put back together with bad parts. We were introducing failure, hence, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I can't tell you how many times I saw a Preventive Maintenance based replacement of a synchronous belt (at the prescribed interval) followed days later by the failure of that replacement belt only to find out that the second belt (made of BUNA rubber) had been on a shelf for 7 years and was beyond its useful life before it was even installed. (Oh yeah...I taught Root Cause Analysis too and would be called to facilities to run the RCA events on failures).

Predictive technologies such as Oil Analysis, Vibration Analysis, Infrared Analysis, Ultrasound Analysis, Motor Current Evaluation were all born out of this age. (BTW, I was certified in all of those technologies)

I would like to know from a “trend” point of view, which is better to cross check wear metal numbers? From a national average or from a fresh bottle?

If you assume like Blackstone and the lab tech bases his opinion from a room of others that may or may not maintain their components well, but we have an “average” from that room, how is that better than starting from the numbers from the fresh bottle that’s used?

As I mentioned above, all of our used oil samples were run against a known neat sample. We might do some comparative analysis against a larger set of similar applications using the same oils, but all trending was done against a neat sample. I'm honestly surprised that Blackstone doesn't do that right out of the gate. Most labs I've dealt with have always requested/suggested sending in a neat sample for that very reason.

I'll bet you could send a neat sample to Blackstone and have them set that as your baseline and then show subsequent samples along with that national average.

Alright, now my brain hurts and I'm having some kind of PTSD-like flashback about being back at work...I need some Bourbon. LOL

Cheers

 

[Maximus Gladius]

At the time I was running the lab, I was the Senior Reliability Engineer (at the time I retired I was the company's Director of Maintenance & Reliability for all of North America). Back in that phase, I was certified at the same level as the techs that actually did the work but my "day-to-day" was not running the samples, rather interpreting the results beyond the obvious and then leveraging that against metallurgical knowns, etc. So in answer to the question, I was the top level "decision maker".



I was not advocating the use of the built in sensor. I agree with you that it is likely no more accurate than my Gladiator's outside temperature sensor is at telling me the actual ambient outside temperature...however, on a side note, one of the instruments we used for testing oil viscosity was nothing more than a dielectric sensor that would test the current carrying capacity of the oil versus the known value of a neat (or new) sample of the same oil. It does work well enough (there are better more accurate methods) as a preliminary indicator and is likely what Jeep's built in sensor does. It was literally the first test we would run on a sample as a gross go/no-go test. If that test indicated "good", then we would perform a proper viscosity test. If it failed, we would recommend oil change based on that alone.

EDIT: I would wager that if Jeep's oil sensor works like I've suggested, then the sensor's oil life estimate is out the window if you are not using the Mopar P/N oil as the sensor would be calibrated to that fluid only. Any other fluid might have a different dielectric value and would be wrong at the first engine start...maybe

What I was saying is that you could reliably perform oil analysis at shorter intervals and allow the data to tell you when the oil needs to be changed. Like anything, Jeep's Engineers along with the Engineers of whatever oil company who's oil was used during the development and testing of the engines has built in a "safety factor" for oil changes. They may see that they can get 7500 miles out of the oil (based on the exact same oil analysis data that you are collecting) and then state the oil change frequency as 5000 miles just to be safe because they know that not every Jeep owner will perform oil analysis.

It wouldn't be at all outlandish to pull a sample every 3000 miles and have it analyzed and then based off of the resultant trends, determine whether an oil change is required or not. We would do this with machinery gearboxes in our facilities and were literally able to extend the oil change intervals by a significant margin. In one facility alone it was worth over $100K annually

I won't dispute the concept of cheap insurance but in the Reliability Engineering world there is another saying that we use and the saying is ironically used to indicate "bad mechanics/maintenance". We use it somewhat tongue in cheek: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Back in the '60's (and re-performed several times since), the major airlines, US Navy and Air Force did a massive study on airplane failures and determined 6 basic failure patterns known as "the bathtub curves". Literally what they found is that the most prevalent of the 6 failure patterns was NOT age related wearout, rather it was related to infant mortality (failure within a short period of being put into service). The major cause of the infant mortality was related, to improper installation, improper design, manufacturing defect, etc. So in other words, the old tried and true methodology of "open and inspect" every "X" days/weeks/months/etc. actually introduced failure as things didn't get put back together properly or it was put back together with bad parts. We were introducing failure, hence, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I can't tell you how many times I saw a Preventive Maintenance based replacement of a synchronous belt (at the prescribed interval) followed days later by the failure of that replacement belt only to find out that the second belt (made of BUNA rubber) had been on a shelf for 7 years and was beyond its useful life before it was even installed. (Oh yeah...I taught Root Cause Analysis too and would be called to facilities to run the RCA events on failures).

Predictive technologies such as Oil Analysis, Vibration Analysis, Infrared Analysis, Ultrasound Analysis, Motor Current Evaluation were all born out of this age. (BTW, I was certified in all of those technologies)



As I mentioned above, all of our used oil samples were run against a known neat sample. We might do some comparative analysis against a larger set of similar applications using the same oils, but all trending was done against a neat sample. I'm honestly surprised that Blackstone doesn't do that right out of the gate. Most labs I've dealt with have always requested/suggested sending in a neat sample for that very reason.

I'll bet you could send a neat sample to Blackstone and have them set that as your baseline and then show subsequent samples along with that national average.

Alright, now my brain hurts and I'm having some kind of PTSD-like flashback about being back at work...I need some Bourbon. LOL

Cheers

Much appreciated write up!

 

[HooliganActual]

Much appreciated write up!

NP, I’m surprised that information is still in there

 

[Lunentucker]

All very good information and much appreciated.
This vehicle is the first time I have ever used or even heard of using oil sample analysis, so it's a learning process.
My primary goal is to simply know with a a little bit of heads up if something is starting go wrong in there. Then I can dump a quart of 50 in it and head in for a trade ? /2 (only half joking).

As for Jeep's oil life monitor, If it was really so smart I wouldn't have to tell it that I just changed the oil, which reminds me, I haven't done that yet.

 

[Lunentucker]

FINALLY got the 20,000 mile report back.
Cause to celebrate!
This thing gets more care and attention than I do ?

Note: I did add some Lucas Low Viscosity Oil Stabilizer this last change. We'll see if that matters at all in about 6 months.

 

[Hootbro]

FINALLY got the 20,000 mile report back.
Cause to celebrate!
This thing gets more care and attention than I do ?

Note: I did add some Lucas Low Viscosity Oil Stabilizer this last change. We'll see if that matters at all in about 6 months.

Looks good.

Was this another run of Pennzoil?

 

[Lunentucker]

Looks good.

Was this another run of Pennzoil?

Yes. Platinum. Some of that I got on the great deal with rebates about a year ago.

 

[KevinC]

Yes. Platinum. Some of that I got on the great deal with rebates about a year ago.

I've got the same oil I bought at a huge discount last year. As I just turned over 2500 miles, it may be a while before I use it all. I have two free Jeep Wave changes too.

 

[Lunentucker]

25,000 miles report shows increased iron content in oil, but I'm pretty sure I fixed it today.

Sponsored