Are UOA's and VOA's overlooking the most important things?

[Kuma]

Hi guys, I have been lurking this board for a long time but haven't posted too much. Hi Patman, I know you from Camaroz28.com, I have the same name there too. Now to business. I've noticed something about UOA's--they really don't account for the quality of the base stock, do they? I mean, they really don't tell us much about that. And for a lot of synthetic oils, that seems to be the most important thing. For istance, don't Amsoil and Redline supposedly use superior base stocks to say, Mobil 1? I really don't understand all the different ways it can be measured yet, but isn't looking at the additive package and what's left of it kind of secondary to wear metals and the physical properties of the base stocks? And there's not much beside TBN that (to me) seems to inform us about them. Anyway, could someone enlighten/flame me regarding my ignorance?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kuma: Now to business. I've noticed something about UOA's--they really don't account for the quality of the base stock, do they? I mean, they really don't tell us much about that. And for a lot of synthetic oils, that seems to be the most important thing. For istance, don't Amsoil and Redline supposedly use superior base stocks to say, Mobil 1?

---

Well, Amsoil buys the PAO base oil they use from ExxonMobil, so it's doubtful that what they use is "superior" to what Mobil uses to make Mobil 1. Redline uses top notch esters in their base oil blend, plus some PAO. Mobil uses some top notch esters as well, just not as much as Redline. (And then we've got the German Syntec 0w30 which is made with mostly esters. )

 

[Jay]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kuma: ... but isn't looking at the additive package and what's left of it kind of secondary to wear metals and the physical properties of the base stocks? ...

---

I agree. The thing I look at first is the wear metals, then I look to see how the oil held up over the interval.

 

[Patman]

Welcome Kuma! In many cases we've seen conventional oil put up wear numbers in UOAs that are better than synthetics. In short intervals it would be hard to say if synthetics will give you less engine wear or not, honestly it's probably too close to call. But it's obvious when you see longer drain interval UOAs, that synthetics are better, they stay in grade longer, hold their TBN better, and don't oxidize as fast.

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II: Redline uses top notch esters in their base oil blend, plus some PAO. ) [/QB]

---

Red Line does not use any PAO's in their oils. It's the straight stuff.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mf150: Red Line does not use any PAO's in their oils. It's the straight stuff.

---

At $7.00 to $8.00 a quart, I SERIOUSLY doubt Redline is ALL ester. If you read the Redline web site closely, you'll notice that they never claim the base is 100% ester. (And MolaKule has posted that Redline is about 30% PAO.)

 

[Pablo]

While some of Redline's lubes are higher in esters than others in their line, none are 100% - there are some weaknesses of 100% esters, technical and mostly cost. As for the original question - I agree and this is what I used to think the oxidation and nitration used to tell us (still does on my OAI reports). But short of a very expensive organic analysis there isn't much that talks to use about what the oil base REALLY looks like.

 

[Rexman]

Let's say you have a high quality ester oil (such as Redline) and let's say it's showing you higher wear numbers than you would expect. Couldn't you take that to mean the oil is really doing a BETTER job than indicated-- because the high quality esters are not breaking down and are keeping most of the wear particles in suspension where they belong (instead of gumming those wear particles to the inside of the engine like a lot of cheaper oils do)? In other words, a synth with a less distinguished base stock might have nominally lower UOA wear numbers, but the reason is deceptive--there might be a lot more additional wear particles that are getting "varnished" onto internal engine surfaces as the oil breaks down under high heat stress. So those wear particles never show up on the UOA because they are still "stuck" to the inside of the engine. But the higher quality oil IS doing its job by not breaking down and is keeping all those wear particles where they belong (in the oil instead of stuck onto places like bearing surfaces, etc.). The wear particles are showing up on the UOA, but at least you got them out of the engine. The oil is actually doing a more effective job of cleaning and protecting hot engine surfaces than the numbers indicate. Does any of this make sense, or have I just inadvertantly joined the ranks of the "Redline apologists"?

 

[csandste]

Isn't this a parallel to discussions in another thread concerning weight and wear? If this is the case, who knows what UOA's are really indicating? Also, I'm troubled by the vast differences between labs on the few postings that show lab comparisons.

 

[Kuma]

So the "ultimate" UOA *would* have a detailed organic analysis of the oil base itself? If Amsoil just buys their base stocks from Mobil, then how can they brag about being the "1st in synetics?" Or do they buy the regular less refined oil from them and then resynthesize it into their own blend? Are you getting essentially the same base stock with Amsoil and Mobil 1? I've been using Amsoil for a while in my LT1, and it gives me great oil pressure, higher than with same weight Mobil 1 (5w30). While the lack of moly in Amsoil bugged me, I settled on this oil because of the good things I've heard about the base stocks...now I feel ripped off. Could someone enlighten me further before I continue to deepen the hole of my own ignorance?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kuma: So the "ultimate" UOA *would* have a detailed organic analysis of the oil base itself? If Amsoil just buys their base stocks from Mobil, then how can they brag about being the "1st in synetics?" Or do they buy the regular less refined oil from them and then resynthesize it into their own blend? Are you getting essentially the same base stock with Amsoil and Mobil 1? I've been using Amsoil for a while in my LT1, and it gives me great oil pressure, higher than with same weight Mobil 1 (5w30). While the lack of moly in Amsoil bugged me, I settled on this oil because of the good things I've heard about the base stocks...now I feel ripped off. Could someone enlighten me further before I continue to deepen the hole of my own ignorance?

---

The base oil is just one part of a very complex mixture that winds up being the oil you put in your engine. Amsoil buys only one part of that complex mixture from ExxonMobil, the PAO. Amsoil's chemists are responsible for the "recipe" of all the other various ingredients that make up the finished motor oil. So even though the base oil is from ExxonMobil, it doesn't mean Amsoil and Mobil 1 are essentially the same thing. Up until recently Conoco and Pennzoil (in their joint venture) produced Group II base oil at the same plant and used it to formulate their motor oils. But Conoco and Pennzoil oils are vastly different in their formulations.

 

[MolaKule]

Kuma, great questions. "I've noticed something about UOA's--they really don't account for the quality of the base stock, do they? I mean, they really don't tell us much about that. " UOA's were never meant to show base oil quality. They were meant to track general oil quality and trend wear and attempt to avoid failures from that trending. VOA's and UOA's will not show you some of the latter developed ashless additives. The use of Nucelar Magnetic Resonance, Advanced Spectroscopy, and other techiques are the only way to determine base oil type, hydrocarbon spectra, and base oil signatures. In addition, the average person would not be able to interpret the resulting charts. And a professional interpretation would be very expensive. "If Amsoil just buys their base stocks from Mobil, then how can they brag about being the "1st in synetics?" Or do they buy the regular less refined oil from them and then resynthesize it into their own blend? Are you getting essentially the same base stock with Amsoil and Mobil 1?" The first question is somewhat political and very historical, but if you examine the history of the development of synthetic lubicants, neither company can claim to be the first. It was Standard Oil that developed the first synthetic lubricants even before the Germans, with Union Carbide actually developing a synthetic oil during the war, but that oil was never marketed properly after. Amsoil, IMHO, CAN claim to be the first American API marketed synthetic with their 10W40 oil (a di-ester) in about the 1972-73 time frame. Mobil marketed a PAO only 5W20 in Europe in 1971-72 time frame, but didn't get to these shores until about 1974, after which it became a PAO/ester formulation. Amsoil get's the majority of their PAO's from ExMo. Amsoil executives have often commented that Mobil is their friendly competitor, and for good reason.

 

[Rexman]

quote:

---

UOA's were never meant to show base oil quality. They were meant to track general oil quality and trend wear and attempt to avoid failures from that trending.

---

Umm . . . Gentlemen, excuse me, but this was the very question I was presenting in my post (the one 4 posts up from MoleKule's). Namely, do UOA's REALLY tell an accurate picture of engine wear when it comes to very high quality ester base oils like Redline? The high wear numbers in a Redline UOA might be telling you a different story from a high wear UOA in a low quality oil. And not just that the Redline is cleaning up after previous oils, but that it is simply doing the job better by keeping wear particles in suspension better--hence, the higher "wear" numbers in the UOA. (Not saying this is definitely the case, only asking if this is a reasonable possibility.) (Maybe this question needs a separate thread-- not intending to hijack anything here, seemed like the question was appropriate to Kuma's concern about the role of base stocks in UOA's.) [ July 24, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Rexman ]

 

[mojo]

Molakule, Althought this might be getting off the subject, the first development of synthetic hydrocarbons did occur in 1929 by Standard Oil of Indiana as you mentioned. Although they manufactured many gallons of synthetic oil, there was no market at the time and this attempt to push synthetic oil failed. But at the same time this occurred, Union Carbide and Carbon Corp. developed their polyalkylene glycol (PAG) oils which became known as UCON LB oils. Extensive field tests of these oils formulated for automotive engines occurred in 1942 and continued into the 1940's. Although thes oils performed well, they had one problem; their ability to absorb water which led to rusting and variety of other problems. However, there were a number of Army aircraft operating in Canada and Alaska that were lubricated with these PAG oils that successfully operated through the summer of 1944 accumulating more than 150,000 hours with no problems.

 

[Dr. T]

I've always had these same questions but nobody had an answer. How do UOA's account for consumption, burnoff, stuck rings, varnish, sludge, etc.. ie. how can they account for the "correct" type and grade of oil for an engine. Do you guys seriously think the 3MP Camaro will go 1 million miles by doing 14-15k mi. (or when the lab tells them) drain intervals? What's missing in using a UOA to give you an accurate or more appropriate drain interval?

 

[MolaKule]

Mojo, I thought that's what I said. "It was Standard Oil that developed the first synthetic lubricants even before the Germans, with Union Carbide actually developing a synthetic oil during the war, but that oil was never marketed properly after. " 1. If you search on "History of Synthetic Lubricants" and "Union Carbide" I had posted a concise history of said lubes. 2. I have the original paper produced by UC from an SME conference of 1947? and they had developed two PAGs or PEG esters, one was water soluble and one was not. The water insoluble PAG did NOT have water absorption problems, i.e., it was NOT hygroscopic.

 

[MolaKule]

Posted by Rexman, "Namely, do UOA's REALLY tell an accurate picture of engine wear when it comes to very high quality ester base oils like Redline? The high wear numbers in a Redline UOA might be telling you a different story from a high wear UOA in a low quality oil. And not just that the Redline is cleaning up after previous oils, but that it is simply doing the job better by keeping wear particles in suspension better--hence, the higher "wear" numbers in the UOA. (Not saying this is definitely the case, only asking if this is a reasonable possibility.)" Any wear partcles (of atomic or molecular size) created will be solvated in the oil by base oil solubility, and the DD package will suspend any larger particles. The only problems with normal FT-IR UOA's is that high-ester content oils may give false or distorted Oxidation and TBN readings. See also http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002989;p=2#000037

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Do you guys seriously think the 3MP Camaro will go 1 million miles by doing 14-15k mi. (or when the lab tells them) drain intervals?

---

No, but then again I don't think he'd go that far even if he changed his oil every 500 miles. Unless it's purely highway driven, I don't believe an LS1 will go much beyond 300,000 miles, it's too tempting to get into the throttle with an engine that powerful, and the more you get into the throttle, the less of an engine life you can expect out of it. But I also don't think he's seriously hurting the life of his engine with his current situation. It's not as if he's shortening the engine life by tens of thousands of miles, IMHO.

 

[Rexman]

quote:

---

It is the detergent-dispersant additive package that determines how much stuff will be held in suspension.

---

MoleKule, ok now I see why you and csandste referred me to the viscosity thread. There are some definite similarities to what we're discussing here. Are the wear numbers seen on a UOA a real measure of actual wear taking place in the engine, or is it more a reflection of how well the oil can scavenge the particles and keep them in suspension, either because of it's viscosity or, in this case, because of the quality and properties of it's base stock. My concern (and this indirectly relates to Kuma's original question) is that the base stocks of high ester/PAO oils are known to have an extra cleaning effect on the engine *in addition to* any detergent/dispersant package present--so a high quality oil is doing a better job of scavenging the wear particles and keeping them in suspension than an oil with a lower quality base stock. Put another way, given two UOA's that show identical values for wear metals--one UOA from a high ester/PAO oil and one from a lower quality base stock oil--is the high quality oil causing as much wear as the other, or is it simply doing a more effective job of scavenging the wear particles and keeping them in suspension, so it just seems that the wear is the same? Man, this is a lot of work, but I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

 

[harrydog]

I asked this question elsewhere, but this seems like a better thread to ask it in. In situations where a turbo gets super hot (I've had mine glow cherry red at times) and the oil cokes up and leaves hard deposits in the turbo itself, will this be revealed in the results of the UOA?