Are Numbers We See in UOA's Really Representative of Engine Wear ?...

Messages
922
Location
Ontario , Canada
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 ?. [Confused]
 
Messages
713
Location
Pennsylvania
very little if any. the only time you see a diff is if you busted a ring, crushed a bearing or popped a gasket, in which case, you are likely in the shop for a rebuild before the UOA comes back. changing the oil WILL NOT fix a metal wear problem, nor prevent it once it has occured - period. Also, for those running long drain intervals - its also a waste of money....the values are never steadily increasing but rather fluxing up and down. CLEARLY then something is amiss. when you have a ppm count, no filter known to man will remove it. (just think how small 1 millionth of a 5qt sump will be - it will scoot right thru all filters) (cant help but remembering a few lines from the movie 'tin cup' in which kevin costner was chiding don johnson and asked him if he ever played some course with only a 7 iron. Don replied 'no, and it would never occur to me to do such a thing'. Same applies for extended drain intervals and UOA)
 
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
Lets see who is a big fan of UOA. U.S. Military NASA Trucking Fleets Arizona State Government Race Teams Aircraft Owners Airlines Railraods Utility Companys Large Machine SHops GM has their own on site UOA programs at some plants to keep machinery running. You can always spend some extra coin for ferrographic analysis . If you want to see those alloys not floating in the oil sample send your oil filter out and get a count and break down of thosse particle larger the 10 microns that were caught by the filter!!! [ July 10, 2003, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: JohnBrowning ]
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
21,988
Location
Oakville, Ontario
And don't forget about one more: Patman I love UOAs! [Big Grin] I'm addicted to them, I bought a 12 pack of sample kits last fall from a local lab, and they are almost done now! [Eek!] [Cheers!]
 
Messages
33,971
Location
Southern NJ
quote:
I love UOAs
Me too! It gives us something to bicker over. [Big Grin] Keeps the blood going. [ July 10, 2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
Top