Are we kidding ourselves judging motor oils by UOAs?

[jthorner]

It seems to me that using Used Oil Analysis in an attempt to judge distinctions between motor oils has a lot of problems with it which makes much of the speculation and conclusion drawing here on BITOG highly suspect.

1) Any wear particles which are trapped by the oil filter (which is after all an oil filter's job) are not left in the drain oil and are therefor not detected in a simple oil analysis.

2) Any wear particles which are left behind as deposits in the engine likewise do not show up in the oil. Thus lower solvency oils might have an advantage in UOA which is not representative of reduced wear.

3) None of the standard engine oil testing methods uses oil analysis as a wear measurement method. All of them use reference engines or other reference bench set ups, run the system through a sequence of operations, then make physical measurements on key parts to determine how much wear happened. I have never seen any data published anywhere which correlates these methods to analysis of used oil. Without demonstrated correlation, we are just assuming that low metal numbers in used oil mean low wear happened.

I am starting to understand those who have shouted from the mountaintops that UOAs are for watching engine trends, catching worn out oil (TBN, viscosity, etc) and for catching contamination problems like blown intake or head gaskets.

The use of UOAs to pass judgement on fine distinctions between various oils based on metal levels does not really make a lot of sense.

Using VOAs to judge oils is even more silly. There is more we don't know about an oil than we can ever learn from a simple minded VOA.

Other silliness is getting all excited about the Connoco oils (Motorcraft, TropArtic, etc.) because they are "Synthetic Blends". Pennzoil, Chevron and others choose to meet GF-4 requirements by using a high quality Group II+ base stock from the get go and Connoco chooses to use mostly lower quality Group I with a Group III or Group IV kicker. Which way is better? Heck, who here really knows? Maybe it makes no difference.

Just some things to think about.

John

 

[JohnBrowning]

Seeing how all branch's of the U.S. Armed Forces use UOA exclusively for determineing OCI I would say that UOA is very viable tool. No I might agree that in some cases we are splitting hairs beyound the reliabiltiy of the test. I think that useing UOA to pick an oil can be very useful in applications that are very demanding or in engines that need a lot of help!

What other tool do we have to see how an oil is doing in our engine? How would we know if it is leaveing a lot of deposits beyound?

 

[Steve S]

What I get from uoa's is how the oil is holding up ,also certain problems show up well using uoa's. Most all major brand oils are excellent whether syn.,petro or a blend.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Are we kidding ourselves judging motor oils by UOAs

---

No ..but probably most of us are kidding ourselves about wear. The UOA, for most of us, only tells us how the oil held up in the subjected service duty.

For the rest of the UOA ...we go on the assumption that less is better.

We're plebes.

 

[Big John]

Aren't the Armed Forces using uoa's to determine oci and oci only,as they buy bulk oil so they can't run down to Az or where ever and buy GC rather than M1 0w30????

 

[mechtech]

jthorner - I gotta admit, you have a pair to make that post around here!
It's like going to Julia Child's, or Wolfgang Puck's website, and then condemning the use of butter!
I agree that for the most part, UOAs are for bragging rights.
VOAs are very informative, and necessary, to make a suitable oil decision, however.
Happy motoring!

 

[1sttruck]

As mentioned in other threads I think that UOAs are a good measure of oil condition. They can also serve as another measure of possible wear or other problems, but they aren't as reliable in this role. Others have posted articles noting catstrophic failures when the UOAs indicated no problem, and even in this forum we've seen good UOAs on engines that had heavy deposits forming dur to mechanical problems. Using UOAs to extend change intervals is risky for these reasons, and should probably be complemented by other measures. The problem is that it's almost kind of a one-sided test, as it's perceived to be useful since people have picked up problems when using UOAs, but it's hard to detect that you may have reduced the life of an engine by 100k miles with a bad decision based on an UOA. The biggest problem is that UOAs do not appear to be a reliable measure of wear, but in this forum that's what they're typically be used for; "Brand X oil produces 0.45 less wear than Brand Y oil per the Fe content in the UOAS."

I'm not saying it's not a useful data point, that it's not fun or that we need to apply 'rigorous scientific techniques', but it'd be nice to see some more discussion on wear and life.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Okay...

Look at this thread:

The amazing ZDDP making machine?

How do we even know we're getting good info when we do spring for a UOA?

And in truth, most of us aren't going to change anything except the type of oil and the way we feel if the UOA is bad. Switch to another oil and VOILA! the iron and copper drop. Now maybe the other oil did better, but just as likely other issues could account for the drop in wear metals--so how do you really know? You've spent around 50 bucks for two UOA's and you probably know less than you did when that Grant was still in your wallet.

(And that fifty would buy you at least five Wally Oil/SuperTech filter changes)!

Maybe some folks would trade a car in early if they thought the engine was crapping out. Me, I'd just run it till it quit (I've got 170K on a 1993 Escort and I don't even want to know what a UOA would tell me!)

Dan

 

[buster]

Also, throw in Redline's take on oil analysis that a UOA is NOT a good measure of comparing oil A to B in wear performance. Mobil/Amsoil state otherwise. It's a very good question, one that pops up time to time. I personally care more about oxidation thickening, TBN retention and keeping the engine clean. I'm not going to sweat a few ppm difference in wear. It's statistically insignificant IMO.

 

[Ugly3]

UOAs have been done for maybe 60 years and no one has published difinitive information on actual engine wear to UOA PPM data? Seems odd to me.

Then there is the CR Taxi test, dino, synthetic, long OCI, short OCI, different brands of oil. The result after 60,000 miles in multiple engines = no statistical difference in actual measured wear between any of the options.

Until I see objective studies that demonstrate the corralation between UOA wear metals and actual wear it is just oil-astrology to me.

 

[Bugshu]

I think that we as oilogists or Bitogists use a variety of ways to come to conclusions. UOA's arent the be all and end all of judicial prudence however they have a place of merit when we make our decisions.

VOA's dont show the whole picture but they give a point of reference about how the oils are built. I think that its absolutely hilarious that Mobil 1 has severely reduced the additives in their oil but trumpet to the heavens that the new 15000 EP oils have 35% more additives than regular Mobil 1. M1 didnt take a really good oil and then add 35% more supersyn and other additives. They took their M1 and reduced additives and then came out with another product line and labelled it EP and said that it had boosted additives. Mobil took a great product and made it mediocre and then came out with a new improved version thats slightly better than the old product and marketed it as being a major breakthrough. The VOA's showcase the changes. M1 was hugely downgraded and M1 EP is a very slight improvement over the old M1. VOA's are our first line of defense when formulations change and additive levels go down.

Then we get form our own opinions based on how we feel our cars run, what kind of gas mileage we get and other factors like picking up on others opinions and ideas. I listen to what Patman says about GC and I listen to what Buster says about Mobil 1. I pay attention to what ToyotaNSaturn says about his experiences and TallPaul with his Valvoline. We can learn from others experiences.

Finally we have price and availability. Most everyone of us has chosen oil at least one time based on finding ease of opportunity to use it whether it be a sale, quick lube (on the road), or just a pretty bottle on the shelf that looks good.

Uoa's give us a frame of reference as do VOA's and even the recommendations and ratings on the back of the bottle. We put it all together and come up with the best solution that we can come up with in our minds.

As Bitologists we probably are taking better care of our vehicles than 99.9% of the rest of the world that buys oil based on price, convenience, and misinformation.

Marketing gimmicks play well in this field because most people dont understand oil.

Hi Im Bugshu and my garage has too much oil in it. We are kind of obsessed people you know.

BUT OUR CARS RULE !!!!!!!!

Happy Motoring All,

Bugshu

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Until I see objective studies that demonstrate the corralation between UOA wear metals and actual wear it is just oil-astrology to me.

---

Let me ask you this though. Take Patman's Vette. Say Mobil 1 0w-30 shows 22 ppm of Fe and 10 ppm of Pb. Then he switches to GC and now shows 11 ppm of Fe and 5 ppm of Pb. Say this happens repeatedly. Isn't it accurate enough to say that GC provided 50% less wear across the board? Or is RL's assumption that solvency/scavenger theory etc. isn't showing what is ACTUALLY taking place in that engine? This is the million dollar question. Race teams often switch from one brand to another BUT, they are using tear downs as a guide, not oil analysis. Only trucking fleets use analysis most of the time and that is to monitor the life left in the oil..

 

[buster]

quote:

---

I think that its absolutely hilarious that Mobil 1 has severely reduced the additives in their oil but trumpet to the heavens that the new 15000 EP oils have 35% more additives than regular Mobil 1. M1 didnt take a really good oil and then add 35% more supersyn and other additives. They took their M1 and reduced additives and then came out with another product line and labelled it EP and said that it had boosted additives.

---

Bugshu, they did add 50% more SuperySyn, which is a unique PAO. So this is in addtion to the 36% and 37% increases over the GF-4 Version of Mobil 1. Still a bargain no matter how you slice it.

 

[Bugshu]

Im not sure about supersyn but if I remember right then SuperSyn GF-3 had much more supersyn than the old TriSyn M1. Im not at all sure that GF-4 Supersyn M1 has anymore supersyn than the GF-3 M1. In fact it may have been reduced. Certainly almost every additive that can be measured by a VOA was reduced. New EP seems to be a solid oil.

On a scale of 1-10 Id look at it this way.

Tri-Syn - 6 (Great Additives - Low Supersyn)
GF3 M1 - 8 (Even More SuperSyn than Tri-Syn)
GF4 M1 - 7 (Oooops additives reduced - Supersyn?)
EP - 9 (Slight Improvement over old M1)

Id rate GC a 10 as it probably is the best OW-30 on the market at the moment.

We dont have the whole picture but the VOA's do give us a peek through the viewfinder.

Happy Motoring All,

Bugshu

 

[DJ]

I think judging an oil based on the first OCI with it is premature but in cases where you have run repeatedly one oil then another and continue to track a trend I believe it valid. This is partly why I never posted a UOA for Rotella 5w-40 in my LT1. I did not want to post the first OCI because the oil was cleaning out some old crud of some sort, began to restrict the filter and get noisey in just a few hundred miles, filter change and topoff and it was good for the rest of the OCI. Whatever it was picking up would have messed with the results, the next fill I had air filtration issues so I passed on spending the $$$ for a UOA, then a couple hundred miles into the next OCI I hit a deer she is off the road for now. Once I get a good honest clean run on the oil I will do a UOA and begin to decide if it really is a good choice. I don't really think runs where the engine had residual other oil or other issues can really be of use in evaluating the oil.

 

[Bugshu]

Yup Trends are Friends

Happy Motoring All,

Bugshu

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Im not sure about supersyn but if I remember right then SuperSyn GF-3 had much more supersyn than the old TriSyn M1. Im not at all sure that GF-4 Supersyn M1 has anymore supersyn than the GF-3 M1. In fact it may have been reduced. Certainly almost every additive that can be measured by a VOA was reduced. New EP seems to be a solid oil.

On a scale of 1-10 Id look at it this way.

Tri-Syn - 6 (Great Additives - Low Supersyn)
GF3 M1 - 8 (Even More SuperSyn than Tri-Syn)
GF4 M1 - 7 (Oooops additives reduced - Supersyn?)
EP - 9 (Slight Improvement over old M1)

Id rate GC a 10 as it probably is the best OW-30 on the market at the moment.

We dont have the whole picture but the VOA's do give us a peek through the viewfinder.

---

Their was no SuperSyn being used in Tri-Synthetic. SuperSyn is XOM high viscosity PAO's that are unique and proprietary.

The addition of Boron and higher doses of Calcium are also new to M1 SS.

 

[goodvibes]

Any modern oil in a proper viscosity and short enough oci is good enough but a UOA lets you optmize duration and chemistry. I doubt 60k in a cab would show much difference. If the original question was referring to VOAs I would answer yes.

 

[novadude]

I use UOA to fine tune OCI, and look for any "warning signs" of coolant, etc. I agree that it may not be a good way to compare oil brands / types for actual WEAR. I think it IS a good for comparing oils on a drain interval basis (i.e. UOA may tell you if Pennz is better after 5000 miles than Mobil when it comes to viscosity retention, TBN retention, etc). However, even that has a ton of variablility.

 

[Don Stevens]

I agree with John Browning.

Relative to jthorner's comments about particles being left behind. My argument is that if there is enough wear to "chunk off" a 20+ micron particle, the wear is going to show up in the form of microscopic particles as well.

Further, I think UOA is the best way to determine if company A's blend formula of acheiveing SL, GF-4 specs is better/worse than company B. Both meet the spec, one might perform significnatly better in real world applications.

Don