I got a reply back:

<br /> Alex,<br /> <br /> ...Stark <br />


So, I'm about to point/send him your spreadsheet Bill. Is that ok? I'm pointing out that the other Mobil samples, even the dino, have high Calcium levels to begin with. I don't think I agree with his statement about Calcium "not decreasing with use", but I don't want to contradict him, yet.

What should I reply? Post your email here and I'll send it his way.

 

It appears from the spreadsheet that SuperSyn gets more Calcium than Tri-Synthetic had.

Another interesting thing I see is that SmoothOperators' 97 Maxima sample of Mobil Drive Clean Blend has a Calcium level of 2288, so either you meant to list his as a synthetic or he didn't run that oil, right?

Wheeeelp!

 

Damn. That sure as hell is interesting about the calcium. I'd really like to know what he means, as everything I've seen, both on the spreadsheet and other forums, point towards a different conclusion. Granted, I'm hardly an expert, but....

 

Well Alex I must be an idiot and my spreadsheet results and observations and experience mean nothing (not being a butt, but very sincere).



I have no clue how someone can state calcium, an additive, does not decrease with oil usage and that it starts at around 299ppm.


Makes absolutely no sense to me.


I would respond to him personally, but I may not be so polite with that B.S. "other labs aren't as good as ours" stuff. Their own universal averages AND many Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic and SuperSyn analysis results directly contradict his own statements, with Mobil 1 typically varying between 800 and 1600 ppm, or just about all oil results I have tested for that matter.

Me doing baseline analyses of most of the oils through Oil Analyzers shows the disparity between calcium levels of dino and synthetic oils, which are quite different in most instances. Whether or not they are exactly precise tends to be focused upon by Blackstone rather than the relative values from each of the oils tested.

Mobil 1's SuperSyn does NOT look like Castrol GTX dino oil, from the TBN to initial viscosity to calcium, unless you consider 8.5 = 12.5, 12.7 = 10.1, and 1500 = 2500 as being the same. Mobil 1 starts "thin" and doesn't thin much at all over mileage, while Castrol GTX dino starts well within a 30 weight viscosity and thins to the high 20s. These things aren't disputable or debateable.

I have no clue why such statements are being made in an e-mail to you. You've been given inaccurate information.

 

OK, Bill and Mark, we are on the SAME page. I already wrote an email with pretty much what you've stated Bill, but I held off, since I wanted to make sure you don't mind me "giving" your spreadsheet away. I can paraphrase the results, instead of sending him the whole file.

If you say YES, than I'll send off my reply tomorrow and copy it here.

 

I would prefer you just send a link to the spreadsheet with samples already sighted by yourself in plain text where Blackstone explicitly has oils for VQs with calcium levels from 800 to 1600ppm (Mobil oils). There are several examples in there. Being generic (not using member names) is best, as I don't have the Blackstone report numbers in front of me. If they want to know more, the link will make it easy for them to find out.


No need to get p!ssy with him, I am just lost as to how someone with his experience can only retort that their methods are superior when it's their very own past results that your particular analysis contradicts.

 

I agree. I'll send it tomorrow.

 

I wonder how many customers Blackstone will lose because of that email. I, for one, am not going to use them anymore and won't recommend them either. I can't wait for a response from them, should be interesting.

 

Mark,

I semi-feel the same way, and I actually agree they are one of the more accurate labs out there based on what I've seen, but if you are the best you shouldn't have to proclaim it in an isolated e-mail.

Their main deficiencies include lumping the "Insolubles" as one value
instead of soot, nitration %, and oxidation % and charging $10 for TBN when it should be standard or a much lower nominal fee for the service.



I humbly ask you not take this action, as it can skew the spreadsheet results in the future.

 

It's not just the email. The whole universal averages thing is kind of a joke, and for my purposes, I really want to see actual nitration, oxidation and TBN numbers without spending $30. Since my car is going to be spending a considerable amount of time on the track, and I'm going to go to bypass filtration, frequent sampling will be necessary. Blackstone isn't going to provide the services I'm looking for at a reasonable price. I do still like their comments section, but I'm either going to use OAI or Dyson in the future.

I guess my post was a little rash and I should wait to see their reply before changing my recommendations to others, but I'm not going to use them anymore for the reasons stated above.

 

Here is a list of Calcium levels from Bills spreadsheet:

Mobil Tri-Synthetic 0W-30 823
Mobil Tri-Synthetic 5W-30 981, 920, 847, 822, 729, 859, 823, 1224, 800, 806, 734,
Mobil Tri-Synthetic 10W-30 848, 803, 736, 761,
Mobil SuperSyn 5W-30 2208,
Mobil 1 Drive Clean Blend Conventional 5W-30 2288<---I think that's not correct.

And mine is:
Mobil 1 Drive Clean Blend Conventional 10W-30 299

So, if the "full" synthetics(Tri-Synthetic) average between 730ish-900ish, yet go as low as 729, isn't it possible that my "Blend" could actually be 299?

If it wasn't for Smooth Operators' 2288, I'd believe that my sample could drop as low as 299. Scary, but possible.

Should I really call Jim on his misstatement, when the real question is whether or not my 299 was correct?

 

With the amount of time and money you all have invested, I would believe that a phone call would be in order. BUT...an email allows for further clarification and keeps "attitude" down.

I would recommend sending an email. Send it a couple of hours after you wrote it to make sure you have a "soft" approach. Like Bill said...no need to get p!ssy, but I do believe an explaination of the facts is necessary. Hiding behind "the best procedure" is not explaining facts. Its hiding. And if someone has to hide, it does not induce thoughts of trust.

 

Those numbers, reflecting the calcium level after use are more typical, so your 299 could in fact be real. That still doesn't help explain how an oil with a calcium level that low could have a TBN of 8.5. If the level were 1299, it would make more sense. I would think having Blackstone clarify their previous email and comment on the TBN would be beneficial.

 

Ok, glad you agree. I didn't want to send that info and then get called on it.

Once Bill responds with his opinion, I'll send the email.

What do you think about Smooth Operators' Calcium level for the Drive Clean Blend? Doesn't that look like a fluke?

 

Please explain why that is odd. Is TBN directly related to calcium level?

 

Considering smoothoperator only used the oil for 3000 miles, I would say his level looks fine, it was just below the baseline.

With regards to yours, I don't understand why your TBN is at 8.5 yet your calcium level is at the lowest that's every been noted in a report. Since calcium is the prime alkaline agent in the oil, I don't get how the TBN can be so strong with so little calcium. Conversely, I don't understand how smoothoperators TBN can be so low yet have a decent calcium level. There must be something more to interpret that can't be deduced from the report. I'm hoping Blackstone can elaborate on their comments, I'm always willing to learn more.

 

To me, Smooth Operators' Calcium level is abnormal considering all the Tri-Synthetics started with ~2569 and after use were in the 800 range. However, his Blend started with ~1900 and after use was 2288.

So, according to my interpretation of the trend in Bills' spreadsheet, the Mobil Blend should NOT end up that high, especially higher than the SuperSyn.

Ok, I see. I just figured that other additives help the TBN value, so if Calcium was low and TBN was high, then the other additives were still strong. I need to do some reading on what TBN means again.

 

I believe he used the Drive Clean blend, which starts out at 2416, so it doesn't look that odd. One other thing is that both baseline's are 10W-30 and he used a 5W-30, which can have a diferrent level entirely.

Other additives do help the TBN value, but the biggest contributor in that particular oil is calcium.

Who knows, maybe Blackstone will reply and we'll all get schooled.

 

But, but, the FULL synthetics start out at 2494/2569ppm and after use end with 729-900ppm, so why/how would Drive Clean Blend end up with 2288?

NEW Synthetic-->USED Synthetic
2494/2569------>729-9xx

NEW Drive Clean Blend--->USED Blend
2416-------------------->2288????????<---Doesn't seem right!

I would think the Calcium in the Drive Clean Blend would break down the same, if not more quickly, than the Synthetics would. Plus, my sample reading of 299, seems to support that theory. Am I missing something here?

Ok.

 

Well, some factors are that he has a high annual mileage and warms it up very nicely. Cold starts and short trips are extremely stressful and can account for the difference in levels between you two. The short trips allow a higher concentration of acids to be introduced, which will deplete the addive package much faster.

I would also suspect that most of the other people in the spreadsheet don't warm the engine up as nicely as he does before they really get on it. As an example as to how much this can effect things, take a look at my results. I baby the car until well after the water temp. has stabilized. After that, I beat the crap out of it. My last 2 drain intervals were 8K miles and my results look pretty good. I also try to minimize short trips and sometimes take a longer route just so the car will run longer.

 

I keep finding inconsistencies everytime I retype the friggen email.

I was all over the low Calcium vs. high TBN count question #2 using the virgin sample baseline numbers for Calcium. Then I look at the Magnesium(also a detergent/dispersant additive) in the USED sample and it was 809ppm, while the virgin is 0ppm. WTF? Something is WRONG with one of these samples! Otherwise, my engine is producing Magnesium. That is why the TBN is 8.5!!!!! I think I need to send in a virgin sample to Blackstone, since there are too many inconsitencies for my feable mind to comprehend. Bill and Mark, what is the deal here and should I add/change anything?


Here is almost completed email, which now I have to change:

[email]
Jim,

I'm confused. My sample was Mobil 1 Drive Clean Blend, which is part synthetic and part conventional. At least that's what they claim.

I have 4-samples, including this one, that were tested BEFORE use and the following Calcium levels were found:

Mobil Tri-Synthetic 5W-30 had Calcium = 2569.
Mobil SyperSyn Synthetic 5W-30 had Calcium = 2494.
Mobil Drive Clean Blend Semi-Synthetic 10W-30 had Calcium = 2416.<---Same oil I sent you, but after use.
Mobil Drive Clean Conventional(Dino) 10W-30 had Calcium = 1900.

I have 20+ USED samples of Mobil(almost all Tri-Synthetic), ALL from BlackStone, if your interested.

A few examples of the USED samples show Calcium levels of:

Mobil Tri-Synthetic 0W-30 823
Mobil Tri-Synthetic 5W-30 981, 920, 847, 822, 729, 859, 823, 1224, 800, 806, 734.
Mobil Tri-Synthetic 10W-30 848, 803, 736, 761.
Mobil SuperSyn 5W-30 2208
Mobil 1 Drive Clean Blend Conventional 5W-30 2288


Questions:
1)According to the above example analyses, how does Calcium NOT decrease with use? Mobil primarily uses large quantities of Calcium for it's detergent/dispersant additive with a small amount of Boron(~30-40ppm), so I'd hope I didn't start with 299ppm.

2)If my Calcium is 299ppm and that's the PRIMARY detergent/dispersant additive in Mobil Drive Clean Blend, how/why is my TBN 8.5? According to your website the TBN is the "amount of active additive" and that "A good TBN result, meaning plenty of active additive is left in the oil, is usually in the 6.0-14.0 range.". So, my virgin oil TBN was 9.1 and after 3K miles dropped to 8.5, yet only contains 299ppm of Calcium,......[finish here][/finsh]

Thank you for your clarification in this matter as I'm VERY interested in understanding your feedback, so I can talior my oil choice for future useage.


Alex Moir
[email]

 

Alex, I think that letter works very well. With regards to the magnesium, I seem to keep overlooking that it will also controbute to TBN as well. As to where it's coming from, it should be leftover from the previous brand or maybe even the factory fill.

Where's Bill??????

 

Auuuugh, ha! So that's where.

It must have been leftover from the Kendall, Magnesium = 1286, however that was for my second and third oil change. I ran the same Mobil Blend the previous change. I guess that stuff lingers for a couple oil changes then, since my oil changes in order were:

1)Nissan Factory fill
2)Kendall
3)Kendall
4)Mobil Blend
5)Mobil Blend<----Sample.

So, I guess my only REAL question for BlackStone is why they said Calcium doesn't decrease with use when the example analysis show that it does. Everything else can be explained(TBN, low Calcium, high copper, Magnesium), right?

Billy? Anyone home?

 

It sure looks like I screwed up and that's actually Kendall 15W-40.

Reasons why?
1)High Magnesium level, Kendall = 1286 vs. Mobil = 0.
2)High Sustained/Kinimatic Viscosity level = 71.3@212F, Kendall = 15W-40 vs. Mobil = 10W-30.
3)Low Calcium level, Kendall = 370ppm vs. Mobil = 2416ppm.


That's NOT possible though. My memory isn't that bad!(ie didn't have too many beers while taking that sample ).

Sure looks like I did though. BTW, it's possible my friends' Chevy used Kendall, which would have been the contaminating residue left in the pan.

Too many friggen possibilities, I'm going to wait until my next sample BEFORE I analyze(go around in circles) anymore. I have a headache!

 

I've made enough stupid mistakes working on cars that I leave the beer until after I'm done. I once slammed the hood and realized there were still some tools under there It was a Honda, so the result was not pretty...

Based on your post above, I would probably just ignore your last sample and wait on your next one. If that was Kendall 15W-40, I think you'll really like the results from the Redline instead. I'm still curious about Blackstone's comments on calcium, that still makes no sense to me.

 

Alex,

The magnesium is a red herring and is simply left over from using Kendall in previous intervals. It will eventually decline to 0, or the level associated with whatever oil you use. Same with viscosity.


The calcium still makes no sense. I suspect a lab error or clerical error. 299 is near impossible given your other wear values, conditions, and oil history.

 

Sample was Redline 10W-40 with 3,271 miles.
My Oil Analyzers VIRGIN sample of the Redline 10W-40.
So, first I'm VERY very pleased with the copper level. Second, the OAI TBN of 8.44 for the VIRGIN sample is too low IMO, especially since the Blackstone USED sample was 12.0. Third, Bill you were right about the Magnesium being left over from the Kendall. Fourth, my silicon is at 13ppm already, but the filter only has 4-5K miles on it. However, my Sentra sample with 4100 miles ONLY got 12ppm. I think it's just the dust bowl I drive through once per month. Should I consider this my "limiting factor" for extending the drain interval? I may want to change the filters more often or get a bypass setup.

Any insight or thoughts Bill and Mark?

 

A bypass setup would do you some good with the silicon levels you're showing at 4-5K miles on the filter. Do you want the added weight (not much, I know), or would it be easier and cheaper to just change the filter every 4K miles?

 

I don't think it's high enough to get drastic, but I'm getting a CAI which will cause even more silicon to get into the oil.

Unless I get a bypass, I'll probably just change the OIL filter every 2K and top off vs. $10 or so for an AIR filter. I think I only pay ~$5 for the 9E000 oil filter.

Actually, I'm going to try the Mobil or Amsoil oil filter and see if that does a better job.

 

You already said I was right, what more needs to be said?


Silicon is a hard thing to isolate as to its cause. Changing your filter at 4k (or half or a third of your overall oil interval) is probably the best thing to do.

 

What's your opinion on the copper? Why did it go away? Redline cure-all? Break-in finally over? What?

Would it be a better idea to pick up a Mobil or ????? filter? Or just keep using the 9E000?

 

I use the Mobil filter...

 

Once I use up all my OEM filters, I'll try the Mobil for a change or two and see what happens. Unless Billy-bob recommends different.

 

Interesting how the iron and aluminum readings flipped completely. One doubled and the other was halved. The copper was probably a mistake from the lab or contamination from another source. It' also interesting how the Redline is starting to thicken slightly already.

Pretty much all my samples on my cars have been with cone filters and the silicon readings have come in better than what I've seen for stock paper filters, so I don't think going to a CAI will necessarily cause a higher reading. I would check all the connections to double check there isn't a leak and go from there. A bypass set-up isn't exactly the most effective way to try to lower silicon levels considering your driving habits. I think you'd probably be better off just changing filters more frequently.

 

Honestly, I think the last analysis was a screw up by Blackstone. And now that I remember their snobbiness last time, simply ignore any of their comments as they aren't applicable.

Like Mark said, changing your filters more often will lower your silicon, particularly the air filter. And 13ppm ain't that bad at all. My 99 has been in the 40s consistently, but I actually found a source of an air duct "leak" that let excess unfiltered air into the intake just a couple of months ago.....




The only Mobil 1 filter I personally like is the M1-105, but they don't fit on VQ30DE Maximas, only VQ35DE Maximas. I would use the STP S6941 filter instead for yours and see how that goes.

If you must go with an Amsoil filter, get the SDF-20. I'm currently using one right now because of what I found out in the previous paragraph the hard way.

 

Where are you seeing the thickening? I don't trust OAI anymore and I'm not sure about Blackstone's "should be" range for the sus viscosity. With a flashpoint of 430F, I doubt that burn-off is occuring.

If you are increasing airflow, freeing hp, you have to be injesting more dirt. It's just part of the beast. I don't think you can get much better filtration than an oiled paper filter.

 

Viscosity of 78.6 = fast approaching 50 weight oil.




Mods to the air intake allow for other possible "contamination" points. The stock intake does as well, though.

 

Redline claims that the 10W-40 has "Thicker oil film at operating temperature than a petro-based 20W-50.", so that's normal.

Yes, however the larger surface area of ANY aftermarket filter is going to allow more dirt into the system. The oiled paper media is the best filtration currently available.

 

I stand semi-corrected on the thickening. Using Blackstone's numbers it's up slightly. Using Redline's spec sheet, it's right on.

With regards to the 10W-40 acting like a dino 20W-50, viscosity doesn't really have anything to do with this. It's more a function of a better film strength and less resistance to shear. A synthetic oil with a lower viscosity will offer the same protection as a dino oil with a thicker viscosity.

About the filtration: More surface area alone might allow more dirt to enter, but if the filter can trap more dirt and flow more air at the same time, that's a different story. Cosider these results for the cars that I'm responsible for: My 97 Max with a cone filter has Si readings of 7 and 9 for intervals of 8k. My 90 BMW with a cone filter had a Si reading of 5 at the 4300 mile sample. The 97 Altima I care for uses the stock paper filter. It had a Si reading of 6 at the 4400 mile point. Considering the BMW is mostly a track ride and lives at WOT, you'd think it would ingest more air Same mileage interval with a cone filter actually had less dirt than the paper one, and this on an engine that should have considerably more. One last data point is the 01 Legacy with the stock paper filter that had a Si reading of 13 at 5921 miles. I'll take the readings from the Max with the cone and the longer interval any day.

 

Ice,


In looking again over your Sentra and Maxima results, I think your 10W/40 viscosity could be causing a decrease in iron and an increase in aluminum and lead, while your silicon must just be your area of the country since your Sentra is consistently coming in at low teens as well.


In addition, did you notice that your Sentra using Valvoline MaxLife had several higher levels of wear metals than the Mobil 1 Drive Clean? Further evidence that Valvoline dino and synthetic oils are some of the poorer performing oils out there.