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