2005 Elantra, Havoline 5w30, 3766 mi, 60573 tot

[blmqzjc]

My latest UOA on my Hyundai Elantra, first in a couple of years. Comments welcome.

 

[tig1]

Nice report, but I would switch to a quality synthetic and go to a 10K or once a year OCI and save the trouble and resourses.

 

[blmqzjc]

Originally Posted By: tig1

Nice report, but I would switch to a quality synthetic and go to a 10K or once a year OCI and save the trouble and resourses.

No can do. My warranty is 10 yrs and requires OCI every 6mo or 7.5k miles to maintain. I always hit the 6mo first. Just for grins, a couple of the earlier UOA's were on quality synthetics, for comparison purposes. As you can see looking horizontally across the report, there was absolutely no discernable difference between the cheapest conventional and the expensive synthetics. So for my type of driving, synthetics make little sense. That being said, if I drove more, or more aggressively, or was out of warranty, your advice is EXACTLY what I would do. Thanks for the comment.

 

[webfors]

Have we ever seen a bad Havoline report? Great oil.

 

[blmqzjc]

Originally Posted By: webfors

Have we ever seen a bad Havoline report? Great oil.

I have become a big believer in Havoline. I originally bought some on sale a few yrs back and put it in my wifes 2004 Diamante (UOAs on this site for that vehicle too). The UOAs were stellar. Blackstone remarked that they had seen virgin oil samples that didnt look as good! So I tried it in the Elantra a couple of times to see how it liked the Havoline. It likes it equally well. Gotta stay with a winner!

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: blmqzjc

Originally Posted By: tig1

Nice report, but I would switch to a quality synthetic and go to a 10K or once a year OCI and save the trouble and resourses.

No can do. My warranty is 10 yrs and requires OCI every 6mo or 7.5k miles to maintain. I always hit the 6mo first. Just for grins, a couple of the earlier UOA's were on quality synthetics, for comparison purposes. As you can see looking horizontally across the report, there was absolutely no discernable difference between the cheapest conventional and the expensive synthetics. So for my type of driving, synthetics make little sense. That being said, if I drove more, or more aggressively, or was out of warranty, your advice is EXACTLY what I would do. Thanks for the comment.

But as we know cheap UOAs do not give the full report of an oil. Many other factors come into play. Metal numbers are in an UOA are deceiving as to the real condition of the oil. About the only thing these reports are helpful with is dirt, coolant, or fuel in the oil, and your report seems fine this way.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: tig1

But as we know cheap UOAs do not give the full report of an oil. Many other factors come into play. Metal numbers are in an UOA are deceiving as to the real condition of the oil. About the only thing these reports are helpful with is dirt, coolant, or fuel in the oil, and your report seems fine this way.

I'm at a loss here to understand that comment. It is your suggestion that an "expensive" UOA would fare better than a "cheap" UOA? Even Dyson uses the same basic spectral technology that others use. There are only two types of spectral analysis used for UOAs, and only one is predominant across most of the industry. Why does cost have anything to do with the legitimacy of the UOA? UOAs are a direct view of lubricant health; they are an indirect view of the equipment health. We can glean things about the oil properties such as vis, FP, contamination, additives like TBN, as well as contributing conditions. We can understand things about the engine environment (contamination and wear). I disagree with your statment; UOAs are much more useful than what you indicate as long as they are used with full knowledge of how to interpret them. That in mind, the wear metals most ceratinly can be telling regarding ranges and trends. Acknoweldgement of the presence of metals differs from the understanding of their origin; we all know that. Short of an expensive and time-consuming tear-down, UOAs are very powerful tools when used with the understanding of both their benefits and limitations. They are not a magical, all-seeing looking glass, but they most certainly are not worthless when it comes to wear, either. This isn't one UOA; it's a series. The numbers are very steady and controlled. I understand, because of his warranty concerns, that he OCIs as such. These UOAs are confirming that all is well with both the oil and the engine.

 

[blmqzjc]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Originally Posted By: tig1

But as we know cheap UOAs do not give the full report of an oil. Many other factors come into play. Metal numbers are in an UOA are deceiving as to the real condition of the oil. About the only thing these reports are helpful with is dirt, coolant, or fuel in the oil, and your report seems fine this way.

I'm at a loss here to understand that comment. It is your suggestion that an "expensive" UOA would fare better than a "cheap" UOA? Even Dyson uses the same basic spectral technology that others use. There are only two types of spectral analysis used for UOAs, and only one is predominant across most of the industry. Why does cost have anything to do with the legitimacy of the UOA? UOAs are a direct view of lubricant health; they are an indirect view of the equipment health. We can glean things about the oil properties such as vis, FP, contamination, additives like TBN, as well as contributing conditions. We can understand things about the engine environment (contamination and wear). I disagree with your statment; UOAs are much more useful than what you indicate as long as they are used with full knowledge of how to interpret them. That in mind, the wear metals most ceratinly can be telling regarding ranges and trends. Acknoweldgement of the presence of metals differs from the understanding of their origin; we all know that. Short of an expensive and time-consuming tear-down, UOAs are very powerful tools when used with the understanding of both their benefits and limitations. They are not a magical, all-seeing looking glass, but they most certainly are not worthless when it comes to wear, either. This isn't one UOA; it's a series. The numbers are very steady and controlled. I understand, because of his warranty concerns, that he OCIs as such. These UOAs are confirming that all is well with both the oil and the engine.

I'm with you on this. I view the data as more relative than absolute; i.e. I am more interested in how a given UOA compares to prior ones "on the same exact engine" under very similar driving and operating conditions, moreso than universal averages for example. You correctly note that this is a series, not a one time snapshot. To provide more info, reading from right to left (oldest to most recent), the oils sampled are as follows: Exxon Superflo 10w30 (very cheap conventional) Exxon Superflo 10w30 Valvoline Synpower 5w30 (good synthetic) Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 (good synthetic) Havoline 5w30 (good conventional) Havoline 5w30 I also once ran Motocraft 5w20 (a synthetic blend), but chose not to do a UOA on it, as it is the ONLY oil that experienced moderate consumption - about 1/2 qt over the OCI. I dont like oil consumption - not sure if it was the manufacturer or the lighter weight (5w20). I'm sticking with the Havoline 5w30. Thanks for your comment.

 

[webfors]

PP performed nicely, and held viscosity. Another oil that rarely has bad reports.

 

[jorton]

Agree with everyone. Consistently good uoa results.

 

[KCJeep]

Must be older Havoline with that much moly still in it? Fantastic results!

 

[blmqzjc]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep

Must be older Havoline with that much moly still in it? Fantastic results!

Newer Havoline, SN/GF5. Moly content is down from the older Havoline by 25% or so, IIRC from the UOA's on my Diamante posted elsewhere on this site, but still a good amount I believe.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep

Must be older Havoline with that much moly still in it? Fantastic results!

That's what I thought, SN dumped moly completely. Good to hear not so, great results.

 

[addyguy]

Still performs well, even w/o a boatload of moly. Added some Boron to help with anti-wear.