Outstanding Brad Penn UOA 10w30 on 2.0FSI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Well maybe an excellent report but I don't know how to compare how good the B-P oil is unless there are other numbers to compare. For example Patmans Vette is a excellent engine it always puts out great looking UOAS.

The iron wear is one of the lowest of the over 100 UOAs we have for this engine. But I totally agree we need more UOAs on this specific car, or other UOAs from 2.0 FSI cars running BP 10w30, to know that this is not a fluke/exceptional specific engine.

FWIW after seeing this UOA I ran BP 10w40 in my 2.0 FSI as a test and it was horrible in terms of performance. It was a night and day difference. My car went from a tire spinning super fun car to a total slug. I couldn't stand it and drained it out after about 200 miles. I know 10w40 is not the same formula as 10w30 but no matter what the wear or cost or anything else, if I lose that much power (or turbo spool up, don't know which) there is no way I would run that oil. It was a bad experience and I hope my car never feels like that again.
 
Hi,
saaber1 - You said this:
"The iron wear is one of the lowest of the over 100 UOAs we have for this engine."

Do you have PQ Index numbers and particle count data to assist in confirming this?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Do you have PQ Index numbers and particle count data to assist in confirming this?

Ha ha I wish! The UOA is posted on the first post. Additional info. such as that from infrared analysis, particle counts, etc. would be helpful but really this is a stand alone UOA so it doesn't tell us much other than to question and look for more info. In other words it's a curiosity that should point us to look for more info.
 
Doug do you have a point you are trying to make? You can save a lot of time by making it or telling us something constructive about the UOA which is the point of this old thread.
 
Hi,
saaber1 - No point other than using wear metal results from "simple" UOAs in the context of comparing lubricant engine wear performance is really a very inaccurate science.

One could venture the thought that in fact iron wear could be greater with this result!!

But you already know that! It would be more meaningful when promoting any viewpoint if the science was more broadspread and included data that can be used to co-relate the "simple" UOA results. The linear PQ Index number and particle count results enable this is a limited way

There is no magic lubricant of course!
 
Last edited:
Totally agree that simple UOA info. is limited especially when it comes to wear metals. The fact that this run's ppm fe/1000 mile is lower than most UOAs should lead one to question further and not jump to the conclusion that this oil is the best, etc. As you said real-world wear could be completely misrepresented (either too high or too low) if the only thing we use is UOA spectrometric analysis data (f.e. simple UOA analysis picks up chemical wear but missed abrasive wear due to particle size).

This UOA looks really good in many categories and definitely peaked my curiosity about Brad Penn oils. My brief experiment was horrible in terms it's effect on driveability in this engine (in it's 10w40 form anyway) and unfortunately didn't last long enough to provide any info. Hopefully someone in the future will provide more data on this oil.
 
Typical.

On one hand we're to accept one poster's broad sweeping assertions based on "experience",and on the other hand we get nit-picking in the extreme of any contradictory DATA.

I mean, why even visit the UOA forum if the results are so tragically flawed?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Typical.

I mean, why even visit the UOA forum if the results are so tragically flawed?
21.gif



With regards to wear metals and such, I'm beginning to think just that. Probably not so much "tragically flawed" as just a blurry snapshot. Those single UOAs at least. They get a little more focused and useful when they are trended.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Typical.

On one hand we're to accept one poster's broad sweeping assertions based on "experience",and on the other hand we get nit-picking in the extreme of any contradictory DATA.

I mean, why even visit the UOA forum if the results are so tragically flawed?
21.gif



UOAs are only worth anything for high end synthetics... didn't you know? We either agree the numbers are worthless, or we don't. It would be nice to have a PC/TAN/TBN with every UOA to help us be more consistent in our responses.

It's obvious (to me) if this were a Redline, RLI, PP or even an M1 UOA we would be giddy with how well it performed and praising the benefits of using such an oil
grin2.gif
 
Doug et al,

I agree that single pass UOA's don't tell the whole story of the condition of an engine.....BUT, with a 'hobby science' such as this, what else do you have to work with?

Most of us AREN'T scientists here, and b/c of the demands of life, and the casual nopture of what we are doing, getting anything close to 'controlled' scenarios for UOA's is darn near impossible.

So just a gentle request to 'back off' of the criticism of single-pass UOA's, and the attempts by people to get something out of them - you do your best, when it's all you have to work with!

With all due respect, gentlemen!
 
I think the problem here is we like to lump things into easy to understand categories. In this case, either "UOAs are worthless in terms of wear metals" or "UOA wear metals tell us a lot". the truth is somewhere in between and wear metals on simple UOAs are not worthless but they shouldn't be taken to mean more than just one fairly limited indicator.

So you have to look at all the indicators and all the data available. I agree with addyguy, in many cases the simple UOAs are all we have. We just need to be aware of their limitations. In the case of the UOA posted in this thread we have a single pass UOA that looks great in may categories. Does it mean it will always do well in this engine? no. Does it mean it's the best oil in this engine? no.

Is it intriguing? you bet! It raises about 1000 questions in my head the first of which is, "Is it a fluke?" the second is, "if this is a group III oil, and if group V oils have done well in this fuel diluting engine, is there something about the group 4 typical 502 oils that cause them to deal with fuel dilution less effectively, or is it all in the additive package? or?... it brings up 1000 questions. And that's a good thing IMO.

In terms of using UOAs as an indicator of wear, fortunately there are people like Dyson out there who can "see" more than we can in a simple UOA because of their vast experience. I have noticed that even these experts sometimes run into issues too where the simple UOA can't tell them enough and they need to have infrared or some additional analysis.

I think Pablo said it best when he said we need to be "cautious" when using UOAs to interpret wear. That is the best way to say it IMO. It is one indicator and the more indicators we have the better our interpretation becomes. But of course as I write this there is surely a "UOAs are worthless/UOAs tell all!" thread going on somewhere. : )
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Is BP 10w30 group II or III?


They make two types: racing and regular

Racing:
Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffininc Distillate = 70-80%
Synthetic hydrocarbon base = 5-15%

Non Racing semi synthetic:
Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffininc Distillate = 75-85%
Severely hydrotreated/hyrocracked base oil = 2-8%
 
Hi,
addyguy - My comments were intended to by constructive - they have been taken up that way by saaber1

His 100 or so UOAs would have been much more meaningful regarding Iron levels if the PQ Index in each was known and even more so if Particle Counts were taken in each case. This is what gives UOAs a greater meaning if Trending can occur - especially with one engine (or component) or on one specific and well known engine familiy enables

It is possible (as he alluded to) to have a low Iron number in a simple UOA and have greater wear with Iron contaminants beyond the >8micron level that the UOA will not expose - a PQ Index result assists in assessing this - as does a PC!

And of course the TBN (TAN too in diesels) is very important too when accessing the lubricant's condition - we all know that

I passed no comment on the single pass UOA here and I never do on BITOG - and I have rarely done so since in joined in 2003!!

Of the hundreds of UOAs I have on my own database around 90% have PQ index, TAN and TBN recorded - a number have PC too
 
I think the issue is that Doug has made it quite clear on this site that UOA's are not the holy grail of oil performance many want them to be. They want to do UOA's using a host of oils and choose the one with the lowest numbers and to be able to conclusively state that this is the "BEST!". It isn't. Most of us on here know that by now.

When I joined this site, I too was wooed by the concept of tracking my "wear" via UOA's. Finding the "perfect" oil that would give me the lowest numbers. Then Doug injected reality into that train of thought and I found out it was not that simple.

So, when I post my UOA's on this site, I always request TBN/TAN. That gives me USEFUL information on how the oil is holding up. My last UOA of PC 0w40 for example showed a rather depleted TBN after only 10,000Km. Not something you expect from an HDEO! So I am quite glad I got it tested. Future UOA's, I will be requesting a PQ index and Particle Count. I doubt Toromont will have a problem with that, since those fields are listed on the UOA's I have done so far.

I think the biggest issue here is that people are upset that Doug is "raining on their parade". When in reality, he is simply trying to put, and keep things in context as to the accuracy and nature of the testing in question. Not something people should be getting upset about. Certainly not on a site that is supposed to be "all about the facts".
 
How in the world can an oil work well enough to PRODUCE a good UOA, if the oil was somehow deficient?

Somewhat of a paradox, as I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I_Hate_CVTs
2023 Subaru WRX - 5567kms on Penn Plat 0W-20 SP (13986kms ODO)
Replies
14
Views
1K
Fa24wrx
S
GMC Sierra 2500 HD L8T 6.6 gas - First UOA, PUP 5W-30, 4,500 miles
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
addyguy
R
Castrol Edge 5W-50 UOA after 4 hours on the track in a Mustang GT
Replies
10
Views
1K
RevvCats
TiGeo
2018 tuned/tracked Golf Sportwagen 100K/4K OCI HPL Euro 5W40 - uh-oh.....
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
5K
TiGeo
S
Mobil 1 ESP 5w-30 2000 miles on oil Ford 2.7 Ecoboost
Replies
13
Views
3K
BMWTurboDzl
Back
Top