15 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHRemoving Oil
Leading reported evidence
Replace oil
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
I have been taking the samples when I change the oil.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I was also reading that recent LN Tech piece and thinking the same thing about running it "one bar above minimum fill level which allows for expansion of engine oil once it reaches operating etmp for vehicles operated both on the street or track." I personally would prefer it closer to the middle of the dipstick/marks rather than 1 bar above min.
Leading evidence: 'Replace oil' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Fill level' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I’ve used through the dipstick method only when the vehicle was immobile and was trying to decide whether to buy it and flip or not.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I was also reading that recent LN Tech piece and thinking the same thing about running it "one bar above minimum fill level which allows for expansion of engine oil once it reaches operating etmp for vehicles operated both on the street or track." I personally would prefer it closer to the middle of the dipstick/marks rather than 1 bar above min.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Fill level
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I was also reading that recent LN Tech piece and thinking the same thing about running it "one bar above minimum fill level which allows for expansion of engine oil once it reaches operating etmp for vehicles operated both on the street or track." I personally would prefer it closer to the middle of the dipstick/marks rather than 1 bar above min.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The best method is drive the car and when it comes time to change the oil, remove the drain plug, let it drain for at least 5 seconds and then capture the sample.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
I usually run at the full mark on the dipstick (still has one) but LN recommends running lower level and I was wondering how to accomplish that without dumping 10 quarts of practically new oil.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
15 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T025149Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hi Lang, 808Bill is right. Oil samples should be taken at oil change intervals. I think someone had suggested sucking it out of the oil filler hose if you wanted to get a random sample, but I wouldn't do it. The best method is drive the car and when it comes time to change the oil, remove the drain plug, let it drain for at least 5 seconds and then capture the sample.
Here are some videos on how to do it. The fact that the during-oil-change video is 2 minutes long and the vacuum pump video is 6 minutes long tells you which method is easier
https://www.blackstone-labs.com/information/videos/
I’ve done both methods on various makes and model.
I suggest doing a during an oil change method when possible.
I’ve used through the dipstick method only when the vehicle was immobile and was trying to decide whether to buy it and flip or not.
If you do it correctly, you’ll be getting oil from down in the bottom of the sump.
I use the pump sold by Blackstone.
Thanks. I have been taking the samples when I change the oil. However, I read the LN Engineering piece on correct oil level for DE. I usually run at the full mark on the dipstick (still has one) but LN recommends running lower level and I was wondering how to accomplish that without dumping 10 quarts of practically new oil.
Last time I tried to put something down the fill tube it would not go far enough before it hit an obstruction.
Lang
If you just open the drain plug slowly you can let it drip at quite a regulated rate. I did this when the dealer changed my oil after some engine work and over-filled it. I'm sure they just blindly dumped in 10 quarts even though it doesn't take that much. If you take the drain plug loose until it's only got about 1-2 threads hanging on, it'll drip slowly. Put a cup under it and let it drip until you've removed as much oil as you want. You can literally remove one drop at a time by this method and get it exactly where you want it.
With that said, I kind of fundamentally disagree with the idea of running these low on the track. Everybody claims they starve for oil when driven hard, and yet we're *removing* oil? It doesn't add up. I run mine one mark below the top on the electronic gauge, since it's known that over-filling, or being right at the top, can be bad for the AOS.
I was also reading that recent LN Tech piece and thinking the same thing about running it "one bar above minimum fill level which allows for expansion of engine oil once it reaches operating etmp for vehicles operated both on the street or track." I personally would prefer it closer to the middle of the dipstick/marks rather than 1 bar above min. But either way, my recent oil change has left mine at FULL after sitting over night. So I wouldn't mind taking that down a tad. I know these engines do not like to run over full.
I have a vacuum can that I used to use for my Mercedes (their preferred "white glove" method) so I guess I could just use that.
Can someone confirm that you use the dipstick tube (and not the fill tube) and will this work on my 1999?
Oh, and if you loosen the drain plug, aren't you technically then reusing the crush washer which could cause a leak?
Key word being "technically". Chances of a leak are nil if you torque the plug correctly. You can re-use those gaskets over and over without problem. Yes, best practice dictates replacing it every time, but in a pinch I've reused both copper and aluminum ones on many cars without leaking a drop.
Correct. OP was interested in just lowering the oil level at this point, not necessarily taking a sample. For the best sample I'd take a mid-stream sample during a full-drain oil change.
I've drawn excess oil out through the dipstick tube. You need a fairly small diameter tubing, but it works fine. I used a large syringe with clear tubing.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
