This post kinda stems from the post about Redline's real world UOA data. I'm just wondering how well UOA data relates to overall engine wear. I think to really measure engine wear you have to compare all the heavy stuff that sinks to the bottom of the oil pan. Of course that isn't really practical for people like us. But the bigger particles obviously sink, so how well do the small particles held in suspension really provide meaningful data ? . Does the stuff held in suspension relate to engine wear directly ?. Are some oils better at holding particles in suspension ?. Thus if one oil is better at holding particles in suspension that could skew UOA results as compared to an oil that is poor at holding particles in suspension. Just some thoughts. I know that UOA data on this board is about as best as we can hope for, but I just want to be sure that what we see in UOA data is fairly representative of the actual wear occuring in your engine. I'm thinking the big race guys do more in-depth wear analysis on their engines thus they really konw what works and what doesn't and perhaps that is why a high percentge of of them seem to use certain oil brands such as Redline, Mobil1, Synergyn, (no particular order or brand here) in their race engines. But when we happen to do our relatively inexpensive UOA testing with these higher cost oils we don't seem to see big differences. Perhaps the big difference is sitting (or not sitting) at the bottom of the oil pan. I remember there was one member on here who often referred to UOA as concentrating on soluble metal data, whereas insoluble metal data was probably more important. hope I am making sense with this post, not trying to confuse anyone. Anyone have any comments on this stuff ?.