2020 3.0 Duramax 1st Blackstone Report

[Time2gofishing1980]

I had roughly 6k miles on the oil and a little under 20k miles on the truck.  This sample was from the 3rd oil change completed.

 

Edit: the truck is currently equipped with a plow and 800lbs of sand in the bed.  It also frequently tows a boat.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Time2gofishing1980

[Z45]

UOA is not a tool for decision making off a single sample.    Used Oil Analysis (UAO for short) is to look for trending wear patterns and help catch problems before they become problematic. Oil analysis reports are not used to determine oil quality or to compare oils. Volatility cannot be determined though a UOA report. A UOA will not determine how much of the oil burned off, carbonized in the turbo, or has stuck to your valves.

[Brokenewtruckowner]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:16 PM, Time2gofishing1980 said:

I had roughly 6k miles on the oil and a little under 20k miles on the truck.  This sample was from the 3rd oil change completed.

 

Edit: the truck is currently equipped with a plow and 800lbs of sand in the bed.  It also frequently tows a boat.

 

Do you have a pic of your plow setup looking into it? Cost? Dealer was like umm u can’t do that and In the same breath tried to tell me warranty was 60k till i pointed out the sticker TIA

Edited November 10, 2021 by Brokenewtruckowner

[customboss]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:50 PM, elcamino said:

UOA is not a tool for decision making off a single sample.    Used Oil Analysis (UAO for short) is to look for trending wear patterns and help catch problems before they become problematic. Oil analysis reports are not used to determine oil quality or to compare oils. Volatility cannot be determined though a UOA report. A UOA will not determine how much of the oil burned off, carbonized in the turbo, or has stuck to your valves.

 

Don't want to come off poorly here but what  you wrote above is true for the untrained, inexperienced, and using oil analysis that gives only parts of the total picture of whats taking place. 

 

I worked for a major OEM running their  R&D chemlab and we routinely used UOA compared to teardown measurements and ratings, to exhaust bag gas analysis, and in-situ dynamic engine test cells so that what we saw in oil analysis was spot on and usually detected problems earlier than other tests could find.  

 

I'm retired now but I really hope some service comes up and offers well interpreted solid test data that has the ICP work, the physical properties data, broad properly tested FTIR data, and Gas Chromatographic fuels dilution, with Karl Fischer water testing.  Properties of testing we offered for 40 years until I retired. 

 

Bklabs is a great company and family but until they offer GC fuels, FTIR, 40c  and 100c vis, and an accurate water reading you are guessing. 

 

 

 

 

 

[customboss]

On 2/16/2021 at 4:16 PM, Time2gofishing1980 said:

I had roughly 6k miles on the oil and a little under 20k miles on the truck.  This sample was from the 3rd oil change completed.

 

Edit: the truck is currently equipped with a plow and 800lbs of sand in the bed.  It also frequently tows a boat.

 

Joe, your insolubles are way too high for this XOM 0w20 and this engine design.  Its not normal insolubles or iron wear. Have you change out the air filter yet? 

 

The aluminum is piston and bearing alloys that are being micro abraded by the soots/insolubles. 

 

The PF66 oil filter is NOT trapping all those  insolubles the engine is making.  On a healthy fresh after-treated DEF design diesel insolubles should be 0. 

 

20 ppm of iron is high for this design @ 19,000 miles  of use so 56ppm of FE  sucks and Bklabs missed that effect!......So I would recommend changing out the OEM original air filter to get more air flow and make less soot. 

 

What diesel fuel are you running and what is available in your market?  Do you add anything to the diesel fuel? 

 

There is a manganese trace that is fuel related that should NOT be there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by customboss
add FE 56 ppm to avoid confusion

[customboss]

FYI  XOM is exxon mobil made Dexos D 0w20 a great formulation.  If the air filter doesn't work try the only other option Amsoil DP 0w20 that is using a soy based technology to solve out some of those DI diesel deposits that NO oil filter will capture.  Key is not to make those fine soots to begin with. Even spark DI engines are making super fine NON POLAR soot that we have to limit because we can't really disperse them or filter them.  But they grind on metal as they circulate.. 

[customboss]

I order my Amsoil when needed from this guy and he's the best including a sponsor here: Black02Silverado

[Grumpy Bear]

4 hours ago, customboss said:

FYI  XOM is exxon mobil made Dexos D 0w20 a great formulation.  If the air filter doesn't work try the only other option Amsoil DP 0w20 that is using a soy based technology to solve out some of those DI diesel deposits that NO oil filter will capture.  Key is not to make those fine soots to begin with. Even spark DI engines are making super fine NON POLAR soot that we have to limit because we can't really disperse them or filter them.  But they grind on metal as they circulate.. 

https://360.lubrizol.com/2015/GDI-Soot-A-New-Challenge

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15000432#:~:text=[31] studied exhaust soot particles,between 30 and 80 nm.

 

Interesting reads on gas GDI. Anyway: 

 

1.) If it can not be dispersed nor filtered then exchange is all that is left? A question not a statement. 

 

2.) In the first link they say such GDI soot is actually more polar? Am I reading this incorrectly?

 

3.) In what way does this soot interfere with the other additives functions> 

 

I am curious. 

[customboss]

Grump, great link posted and the fact is the DI gasoline or ethanol soot is not much different than diesel soots. 

 

Answers: 

 

1) physical movement of the lubricant to drag the particles if you can suspend them or  more likely it falls and becomes a deposit.   NOTE Porsche among others is making GDI exhaust traps like DPF for diesels. 

 

2) that is what lubrizol wrote about exhausted soots not crankcase soots.  I studied post EGR  crankcase soots that we measured in the engine oil circuit. Note EGR affects the soots too, EGR cycles are high especially when valve-train is now the EGR mechanism.  When I studied the crankcase particles it was in same time frame and we did not separate EGR effect since all modern engines are using that method. 

 

3) Its essentially inert but will deposit and when circulating in the oil volume with micro scar as we see in this test result. It's essentially a byproduct of direct injection and amplified by EGR cycles. 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, customboss said:

Grump, great link posted and the fact is the DI gasoline or ethanol soot is not much different than diesel soots. 

 

Answers: 

 

1) physical movement of the lubricant to drag the particles if you can suspend them or  more likely it falls and becomes a deposit.   NOTE Porsche among others is making GDI exhaust traps like DPF for diesels. 

 

2) that is what lubrizol wrote about exhausted soots not crankcase soots.  I studied post EGR  crankcase soots that we measured in the engine oil circuit. Note EGR affects the soots too, EGR cycles are high especially when valve-train is now the EGR mechanism.  When I studied the crankcase particles it was in same time frame and we did not separate EGR effect since all modern engines are using that method. 

 

3) Its essentially inert but will deposit and when circulating in the oil volume with micro scar as we see in this test result. It's essentially a byproduct of direct injection and amplified by EGR cycles. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you! 

 

In retrospect I asked question #2 poorly. I know that carbon and carbon hydrogen bonds are not polar. What I should have asked was why did Lubrizol said they were. My guess was that soot is rarely 'pure' and that some polar action would come from the impurities. As you did not specifically address this I continue to wonder. Any insight into EGR soot polarity to share? How does it differ from sump soot chemically. I've never studied this. 

 

The other link was to show others the size of sump soot so they could get the noggin around the ineffectiveness of filtration to this end.  3 micro is really small  Hope you didn't mind. 

 

Again thanks. 

For your consideration and comments please. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11249-018-1115-x

Edited November 18, 2021 by Grumpy Bear

[customboss]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Thank you! 

 

In retrospect I asked question #2 poorly. I know that carbon and carbon hydrogen bonds are not polar. What I should have asked was why did Lubrizol said they were. My guess was that soot is rarely 'pure' and that some polar action would come from the impurities. As you did not specifically address this I continue to wonder. Any insight into EGR soot polarity to share? How does it differ from sump soot chemically. I've never studied this. 

 

The other link was to show others the size of sump soot so they could get the noggin around the ineffectiveness of filtration to this end.  3 micro is really small  Hope you didn't mind. 

 

Again thanks. 

For your consideration and comments please. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11249-018-1115-x

That link is a good Shell influenced test and note they focus on succinmide additives that Shell Rotella  uses effectively in most of their formulations. ZDDP is not your friend with modern engines. It’s just effective and cheap but the effective can be deleterious to wear control. 

The report and guidance time2gofishing hasn’t changed from my perspective. 
MAKE LESS SOOT BY BEING TUNED BEST YOU CAN. 

TRY ANOTHER LUBE. CURRENTLY AMSOIL IS YOUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE OPTION 

THE SOYBASED COMPONENT OF AMSOIL MAY SOLVE OUT THE DAMAGING SOOT WE CANNOT CONTAIN AND MIGHT HELP AGGLOMERATE THE SOOT SO IT CAN BE FILTERED. 

As far as clinical soot and EGR R&D it’s complex suffice it to say like any reactor the fuels and lubricants byproducts that are recycled via EGR will be changed via that reburning with introduction of new blow-by . The cleaner the initial charge the cleaner the EGR. 

Oil filters are at peak efficiency when they are new and will never remove small fuel generated particles. The um capability of a fluid filter really matters little if the particles don’t flow across the media at proper speed for the directional change to enable the filtering effect. More minutia that matters. 
Compare and contrast to air filtration that increases in efficiency as it cakes. Not so fluid filtering dynamics. 

 

 

[customboss]

Another lever the 3.0 can utilize is good diesel fuel chemistries where you introduce quality effective dispersants into the mix via fuel side. CENEX ROADMASTER diesel might help. EXXON EFFICENT another.  
Using traditional top treat products might cause problems. 
Hope the OP comes back to reply. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by customboss

[Grumpy Bear]

9 hours ago, customboss said:

Another lever the 3.0 can utilize is good diesel fuel chemistries where you introduce quality effective dispersants into the mix via fuel side. CENEX ROADMASTER diesel might help. EXXON EFFICENT another.  
Using traditional top treat products might cause problems. 
Hope the OP comes back to reply. 

 

This happens more often than one would wish. 

[Grumpy Bear]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11249-018-1115-x

 

For your amusement and mine.  This is not a rebuttal. Conclusions I drew from this paper. No claim is made for correctness. 

 

This paper uses allot of words and pictures to draw allot of conclusions presented in the findings that add so much mud to the water that the information one is looking for, while present, isn't obvious nor is it intended to be. They have a grant and need to look sharp. That said there are some gems to be gleaned. 

 

While this paper goes to great lengths to tell you in minute detail everything that did not work hidden in the text are the few combinations that did work. 

 

It points to the fact that while carbon is non polar that polarity is not the only tool in the bag that will hold a particle in suspension. In this case absorption. (hint: there is a difference in structure between soot and carbon black which has an effect on absorption which is not mentioned  )

 

What the layman reading this paper is intended to walk away with is the ZDDP is ineffective in GDI motors. There is a huge push to limit or eliminate phos in oil. A cat killer in motors that use oil and a condition OEM's do not want to address properly. Lots of skeletons.  

 

 What it really said is the wrong ZDDP and wrong dispersant mixed in the wrong proportions will be ineffective in preventing wear in lubricated surfaces of the wrong hardness when said carbon is present in unholy concentrations. 

 

The conclusion that can be drawn, and correctly so, is that the right ZDDP with the right dispersant in a motor with reasonable soot levels and robust designs with are not only possible but common will wear 'normally'. That it is possible with the right chemistry the second stage zinc laydown will happen and be effective. I'm guessing that any major brand or blender will have the wherewithal to get it right. It isn't like kindergartners are finger painting. 

 

One of the giveaways in this paper is a statement that says, paraphrased here, A dispersant of a specific concentration aided in wear by making the soot 'more mobile'. That's shorthand for it worked as a dispersant at a 5% carbon load! That's a good dispersant. 

 

 

I also noted that the lubricant was a single 'dry' GTL and the 'formulated oil' lacked any detergency. 

That is was 4.2 cSt oil. About the same as a 3W fork oil. Then test ran at 70 C or 158 F. This would raise the working viscosity I expect to that of perhaps a 16-20W equivalent at 212 F/ 100 C.

Carbon load was 5% (below) which is 50 grams per liter!! or about 5 times the Blackstone 'wish list' number and 2.5X the cautionary value that triggers an alert.

Lastly, carbon black is commonly used for this study but it is not the same chemical structure as soot. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_black

 

Opening paragraph: 

[quote]

The process of obtaining engine soot from lubricants is time-consuming and the soot extracted will be contaminated by additives specific to the lubricant and fuel used. Soot can also vary in the degree of graphitization and particle size depending on engine conditions. Therefore, a soot surrogate such as furnace or channel carbon black (CB) is generally used for wear studies. In this study the CB Vulcan XC72R (Cabot UK Ltd.) was used as soot surrogate. Based on Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) it has a primary particle diameter of 20–50 nm and it can form secondary structures of about 400 nm. Figure 1 shows a typical secondary particle made up of fused primary particles. In this study a concentration of 5 wt% of the CB was used unless stated otherwise. [end quote]

 

None of this is odd. The entire point in such a test is to eliminate variables and accelerate the result. Fine if you researcher but as a lay observer it sounds like an apocalyptic event. It isn't. 

 

Every paper is self promoting but don't loose is usefulness in doing so. There's a saying:

 

"Tis an ill wind the blows that does not benefit the sail of some ship" 

Find the gems..

 

Now is it the best chemistry? I'll leave that to others. 

[customboss]

13 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

What it really said is the wrong ZDDP and wrong dispersant mixed in the wrong proportions will be ineffective in preventing wear in lubricated surfaces of the wrong hardness when said carbon is present in unholy concentrations. 

Absolutely spot on!  Its a research paper not a walk in the park for the consumer of course.   Its dated 2015 and there have been some discoveries since that year,.... I am sure no company is disclosing. Especially Shell.