Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Not very many people would have much to say if the criteria for being able to talk about something was that they had actually done the thing they were talking about. There aren't too many people that have actually beat the tar out of several engines using the different oils in question and then tearing them apart to mic the moving parts and report the findings. All the rest of us just talk about what those people do. Our biggest problem is that it can be hard to acquire the findings of those people that do that with the oils we want to know about. Again, we do what we can.
To make you more than an armchair quarterback you would have to have done more than watch two engines expire while finding no heads-up w/UOAs. Please explain in excruciating detail how watching two engines die makes you an expert on the differing wear in passenger car engines using 20w vs 30w. What oils and what form of death? Was it relevant to the point at hand? How did each die so that the UOA became pointless? Perhaps all of our UOAs are pointless and we're all wasting our money. Perhaps not.
I am not negating the tests the guy was a part of, but "it's a secret and I can't tell you the details" is hardly an unreproachable recommendation of his opinion. The degree to which his opinion is relevant to our type of use, then, is also a secret. How much difference was he alluding to? Was it statistically significant? Statistically significant to automotive companies spending millions on research or to guys that argue over M1 iron being 10-20ppm higher than PP?
How about a guy with 50 years experience in the industry, working for multiple oil companies and being a Tribologist? Would that work for you?
Doug Hillary wrote an article FOR this board, on UOA's and what they should and should not be used for:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/index.php?...month&Itemid=78
Quote:
By Doug Hillary
UOAs are a great tool in the Management of any machinery that uses liquid lubricants. Unfortunately, their real value is often misunderstood by those who contribute to BITOG.
Firstly, it is important to realize that you get what you pay for. The most common forms of UOA are limited in their scope. It is a case of if you pay more you get more. So my comments here relate primarily to the “simple” UOAs – the cornerstone of those appearing on BITOG
Secondly, it is easy to assume that by carrying out a UOA you will be able to determine how quickly the engine is wearing out. As well, if you change lubricant Brands you will be able to compare the wear metal uptake results and then make a balanced best lubricant choice to make your engine last longer.
Sadly that logic is seriously flawed.
Single pass (random) UOAs will provide some information regarding wear metals but unless you have a history of your engine’s performance up to around 1 million miles the results are simply that – UOA results! As an example a limit of 150ppm of Iron is a reality – after say 100k it means the lubricant should be changed and all is well. But what is the situation if you have 150ppm of Iron at 5k? Where would you look what would or could you do? So UOAs are really a diagnostic tool – one of many!
The other parts of the UOA Report will be much more valuable to you – it will tell you about the CONDITION of the lubricant and its suitability for further use. This will enable you to get the maximum safe use from the lubricant saving a valuable resource in the process.
