Are we kidding ourselves judging motor oils by UOAs?

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

but we both agree that using wear metals in a UOAs isn't a good measure of engine life.

---

That statement is correct only under the limited usefulness of plotting and predicting the life expectancy of an engine. There are too many factors involved to do that.

This is entirely different than attempting at "minimizing" that wear based on UOA.

Now PC may add a new dimension to this effort ..but I don't see how this discounts or disproves that trace metals, in any way that you measure them, are not something you want in any amount in your oil. Whatever relieves/reduces their number can not be a bad thing.

As far as film formations, and the imperical data that the wear upramps at a certain point into the OCI, why hasn't your film formation theory led you to the conclusion that the bonding/formation action entrains the metals that would be suspended in the oil ..and that the resultant upramp is the normal ejecta that the oil can no longer entrain?? That is, whatever chemistry that has formed the bonding/film formation is taking normal ejecta ..diverting it (removing it) and then at some point ..is no longer doing that. I mean you assert that ..but seem to feel that this interupted process (normal ejecta) is still an invalid measure of the "normal ejecta". That is, the oil initially acts as a capacitor ..soaking up to the point of saturation ..then ...it's business as usual.

What part about BAU do you have a problem with??

You're not filling in the congruencies and recipricols of your assertions in a manner that I can comprehend ..sorry ..I'm just challenged on this

(this isn't a rant nor a slam) I'm having so much difficulty with the "passive" nature of your theory here. It is like trying to definitely describe the subtle anxiety disorders found in adult children of alcoholic parents and showing some nebulous "fine lines" that have the appearance of truth ..only if you can tune in to the conceptual obscurity of mindset. I'm obviously too numb to reach that sophistication of thought given my inability to view this topic to that intricate depth.

What is apparent to you ..is not apparent to me ..at least to the point of enlightenment "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Your offerings only appear to "suggest" ..and don't prove. I assert that UOA "suggests" and doesn't prove. That's where it sits in my mind and I can't see a substantial reason to move out of one "suggestive" camp for another

quote:

---

It appears that we're in agreement.

---

If we are ...you sure have fooled me. Thanks for letting me know

[ March 07, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[Bugshu]

I could be wrong but it seems to me that ARX and other ester based oils showcase cleaning properties that act more like surfactants than solvents. This would seem to be congruent (hehehehe I love stealing Garys words) with 1sttrucks film theory.

I find it interesting that Redline gets picked on in this discussion and when you think about it if it was acting with surfactant tendencies then 1sttruck has an amazing point regarding UOA's.

I have learned a great deal from this discussion and would like to thank its participants. My respect for Gary grows daily and I have to admire someone who can write about oil and use words like paradigm, nebulous, ejecta that just showcases his intelligence.

Id like both 1sttruck and Gary to talk about the film theory in relation to oil filters as it would seem that if an oil with surfactant ability dislodged film, varnish, or sludge that the oil filter would catch much of it. Everytime these guys type a post I learn.

If I have a comment at this point about UOA's its to remind people on both sides of the aisle that trends probably are the key to interpreting UOAs. I dont think that we are really as good at interpreting UOA's as Terry Dyson and his service is worth the money however even a novice like myself can recognize a trend or two. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize that Mobil 1 OW-20 is putting up some amazing UOA's on every Honda engine thats running it. I would like to remind Terry that even without his expertise that there are people here who arent dummies and who can get a feel for an engine based on a UOA.

On the flipside, Terry has seen more UOAs than probably all of us put together and what you are paying for when you get his advice is his wealth of experience.

What confuses people and Ive heard Terry mention it on these boards is that often without a good baseline its hard to interpret UOAs. The person that uses a different oil and filter combo makes it tough to establish a baseline trend. You cant use Castrol dino one 3000 OCI and then switch to Amsoil Synthetic for 12000 miles and get a good comparision between the two. All of us expirement and its fun to do and we change oils, oil filters, and different additives and its hard to really compare the differences and predict performance. One reason that I like Big Al's posts and UOA's is because he typically runs 3 samples and then makes a small change and tries something else.

Once I wrote a post requesting that those of more knowledge and experience give us some advice on how to set up a UOA program. Vetteman moved it to a different forum and the topic got buried and forgotten.

I think for a UOA program to have maximum benefit that a plan must be instigated and adhered to before beginning. Somebody running 3 Uoa's of Redline 5W-30 and a pure 1 filter might make a small change to say a bosch premium filter and do 3 more uoas and then compare.

I imagine that even for someone as smart as Terry Dyson that its hard to judge a Uoa going 3000 miles on 5W-30 mobil drive clean with a supertech filter one uoa and then 12000 miles on Amsoil OW-30 and an Amsoil filter the next Uoa and then switch back to Schaeffers 10-30 series 7000 and a Wix filter on the third UOA.

In short I think UOA's would be better and more helpful to us if we got some good advice on how to set up a program where we could evaluate consistant trends and then make small changes to adjust towards excellence.

I really would like Terry Dyson or Stinky or somebody thats an expert on this issue to comment.

Overall, this is a great topic and Ive learned a lot from it. Lets hope Vetteman lets it live for awhile.

Happy Motoring All,

Bugshu

 

[jthorner]

This is a rather interesting discussion, I am glad to have kicked off this round of it.

Having read all of the learned responses, I think that one of the accepted wisdoms of BITOG land: "German Castrol is a superior motor oil as compared to Mobil-1 because it returns lower metal wear numbers in posted UOAs" remains highly suspect. No one has ever stated this accepted wisdom directly, but it certainly is implied by the vast body of GC discussion.

My point is that UOAs are not sufficient information upon which to base such a conclusion, because we do not know how much of the actual internal engine wear ends up as suspended particles in the motor oil, how much ends up in the oil filter, and how much accumulates in the various areas of the engine .. nor do we know if those variables differ between different oil chemistries. If one were to tabulate the UOA data on BITOG and rank some of the popular retail synthetic motor oils for engine wear, I suspect that GC would come out "Best", Mobil-1 "Second Best" and Redline "Third Best". However, I doubt very much the validity of any such conclusions. Simply put, I do not believe we have sufficient valid data upon which to do such hair splitting.


John

[ March 08, 2005, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: jthorner ]

 

[TooSlick]

The vast majority of wear metal particles in a normally functioning engine are < 10 microns and they DO show up in an oil analysis. This idea that there is all this wear going on that you aren't seeing just isn't the case, based on all the research and reading I've done on spectrographic analysis over the years.

As I mentioned, the validation of the accuracy of oil analysis is that the results are VERY sensitive to changes in external contamination from dirt/silicon, or internal contamination from soot, fuel, coolant and insolubles. You can easily watch the wear rates fluctuate as these parameters change. The problem is that most folks are focused on whether oil A is better than oil B, instead of looking at the engine environment and operating conditions. So they miss all the important stuff ....

TS

 

[1sttruck]

Wow, what a good thread.

I don't have experience with UOAs, but from what I've gathered while engaging in discussions like this I'll agree with Doug's observations. They don't seem to be used that much in 'wear rate'/life studies, while they seem to be a standard tool in lubricant condition/maintenance programs and studies.

On Terry's comments about AutoRx I wasn't suggesting that it resulted in increased wear metals after treatment, instead I was referring to increasing wear metals while it was being used, and seeing decreased wear metals after use. There seem to be a few UOAs while AutoRx was being used, and they seem to support the observation.

 

[1sttruck]

A common statement seems to be the need for trending in order to be able to detect changes. Unfortunately the most valuable data that memebers here could provide would also be the most boring, and that's using one oil with a fixed change interval over vehicle life, and trying to develop better correlation bewteen wear numbers and life. It would require lots and lots of 'experimenters', but we see similar things being done in groups like amateur astronomers who provide lots of observations for some subjects.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Bugshu, thanks for the kind words.

 

[Terry]

Redlines chemistry is more reactive than Auto-RX and much faster . Redline is a poor cleaner/dispersant for DEEP cleaning because their chemist designs the oil to lubricate primarily, not clean and hold a lot of grams of trash in suspension.

As we have seen a few times even here , RL ( like any lubricant) will sacrifice itself to attempt to clean.

RX is almost completely inert to the host oils chemistry and uses that lubricant as a vehicle to get to the parts and dirt to clean.

 

[1sttruck]

Here's a few AutoRx UOAs after a quick search...

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002314

With AutoRx in the oil the wear metals are very high


http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002072#000000

Although it appeared that Mobil 1 was causing a lot of wear I'll guess that it was just dissolving a lot film, as after the AutoRx the numbers look better.


http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001967

Appears to be higher than typical wear numbers with AutoRx in the oil.


http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001685

Decent wear numbers with AutoRx, but after using only synthetic oils ?

 

[fuel tanker man]

So is it unreasonable to conclude (based on the above Auto RX UOA's) that both Auto RX and Redline motor oils are probably cleaning out the sludge caked "cracks and crevices" which accounts for the high wear metals in the UOA's? And that a knowledgeable individual reviewing the UOA should take this into account without question? Perhaps. Interpreting UOA's... tough business for sure...

So we accept the notion that a particular oil (or additive) can act as a stronger than typical solvent and clean out sludge that contains iron, copper, lead, etc., from when the engine was practically new.

Breaking in a new engine probably produces extra heat to allow even more "caking" of oil sludge--which likely contains quite a bit of wear metals. Hey! Maybe we ought to break in on synthetic to prevent this accumulation. No?

Anyway, I can see where Terry is coming from when he says to run the Redline for a couple OCI and then sample the third one for a real idea of what's going on.

The Auto RX would seem the more economical way to clean out the sludge. It's 25 bucks a pop as opposed to 40 bucks worth of Redline oil (for most engines).

BUT!

How 'bout just cycling through some HDEO (Delo, for instance) when the weather permitted? I think such might at least knock down the high spots--even if it didn't provide a "deep cleaning."

My little high mileage Escort stopped burning oil after I ran a gallon of Delo in her for 2500 miles last summer. I've got 5W30 Motorcraft in there now and it's all present and accounted for after 1700 miles.

Dan

 

[Terry]

Gonna get some free work out of me.

LT1 (AUTO-RX clean phase) has a fuel dilute issue with added si ingress, piston and bearing wear normal ranges but elevated by those causes, not RX cleaning. Chemistry change from previous oil used a contributor.

F150 ( AUTO-RX POST clean phase) Amazing cleaning on a fuel diluted,sludged,dirt ingressed, over drained cheap oil used before. Chemistry change affected some of the elemental values being elevated. This is a customer so I am familiar with the background on a very abused engine. RX did a great job lowering wear and cleaning up the engine.

SAAB (AUTO-RX clean phase) ,fuel dilute issue affecting elemental wear rates and high Nit.Fuel issues common with the SAAB fuel and ignition design.

2.2 VtEC (AUTO-RX clean phase) note these engines use as much oil as the driver is in VtEC ! Elemental wear values normal. Abnormal is solids build up as the owner admits his insolubles run 0.5 % consistantly, note RX did not raise that value during cleaning. He also has a fuel dilute issue based on the total analysis values. This is a classic example of how even syn based oils do little to clean long term or deep enough. I agree a second RX treatment is in order.


Not one of these tests shows RX increasing wear, from the problems each engine is exhibiting Auto-RX may have lowered wear rates in spite of cleaning.

 

[Bugshu]

Seriously Dan, I think we have to look at ARX and perhaps other esters as well as having properties that at least mimic surfactants. 1sttruck brought up the film theory and every time I mention a surfactant the experts on ARX grow strangely quiet. If it looks like a surfactant and acts like a surfactant then its possible that it is a surfactant.

One advantage that ARX has over solvents is that it doesnt act like them. Its a gentle cleaner that can clean even into varnish. From the pictures weve seen of ARX cleanings it appears that the surface film was loosened and the filter caught the debris. We have slow cleaning with a rinse cycle necessary and we know the filters are pulling a lot of sludge out of the engine. I could be wrong but I have an inkling that with ARX and perhaps other esters that the sludge isnt being dissolved but rather its being loosened from its attachment onto the metals of engine parts and then disposed of through drains and filter changes.

If esters have a tendency to attach themselves to metal then wouldnt it make sense that they would compete with other sources of pollution trying to do the same? If an ester did in fact dislodge other ejecta then an oil analysis would be skewed until the engine showcased a higher grade of cleanliness.

Gary makes the point that we are talking theory rather than fact and of course hes right. 1sttruck makes the point that many dont even do UOA's during ARX and Im among that crowd.

If somebody had a bit of pollution or other ejecta that became dislodged during ester particulate competition for metal attachment then I could see how a single UOA would skew towards a negative bias.

Its interesting to see how some Redline, GC, and even high mileage and start up oils post up less than steller UOA's the first time they are used and then turn out stellar UOAs after 2-3 samples. I wouldnt be a bit surprised to find out that the magical supersyn and synerlec additives in Mobil 1 and Royal Purple might have a few esters in them. Mobil 1 used to call their synthetic oil Tri-Syn and claim it had 3 kinds of synthetic oil in it and then they changed it to supersyn and got secretive and quiet about its secrets. Esters might be one of them. Certainly Fraink Miller doesnt like synthetic esters competing with his during an ARX treatment.

I think that 1sttruck has hit on an issue worthy of some exploration. How films develop and attach themselves to metal and stabilize or become dislodged would be interesting to the Bitologist who would hope to understand how lubrication functions.

Happy Motoring All,

Bugshu

 

[Gary Allan]

I (naturally) agree with Terry. Although I've seen many UOA pre-"qualified" as an A-Rx clean/rinse phase ..I've yet to see one really out of whack. For the amount of "liberation" that Auto-Rx obviously does ..one would expect elements in the 100's if not the 1000's in ppm. We don't.

In my under-educated observations ..the stuff is mostly transparent in UOA. It's got to have some chelating properties that we're not aware of ..except in the apparent lack of impact on metal levels.

Let's dissect the Auto-Rx UOA a little further. Someone has to do a PC on the cleaning and rinse phase. I don't think the cleanliness of the engine would matter much if the "film" theory is on sound footing. If you see the under 5um or under 10um (or whatever) counts in the 10X range when compared to other PC..yet see normal or near normal wear markers ...you've got a chelant that masks those elements contained within.

 

[Bugshu]

Hi Gary,

Ive seen ARX compared with solvents and now chelants. Wouldnt the calcium compounds in oil neutralize some of the chelant tendencies? Im trying to learn and understand things here and Im curious as to your opinion as to how and why ARX seems to have chelant properties? Wouldnt you be creating a different kind of sludge?

Explain please !!!!

Happy Motoring All,

Bugshu

 

[1sttruck]

The F150 had two changes of Mobil 1 oil, each exhibiting high 'wear'. Was Mobil 5W-30 creating high wear, or merely dissolving sludge and varnish in the engine ? Is Motorcraft 5W-20 producing an order of magnitude less wear than Mobil 5W-30, or just exhibiting less wear metals now that the sludges and varnishes been removed ?

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002072#000000

Chris B. said "Yes you are right. The 2 Mobil 1's were before the ARX and rince cycle. We found the problem on the 1st UOA with M1 and it just got worse with the 2nd so that is why we did the ARX.

What I think happened and I'm willing to bet on it it that this truck was bought with 17,000 miles on it. It was a lease return and my friend got a good deal on it. I think the original person who leased it did not change the oil once as they knew they were getting rid of it or just cold not make the payments so neglected the maintenance. That first 17,000 miles with no oil change sludged up the motor and caused the motor to wear fast! When we put in the M1, it started to clean up the engine a bit hence showing the high wear in all the crap in the engine. The ARX just cleaned it out really well and now we are back with a clean healthy engine that can wear normal now. I hope that all makes sence!


Exxon acknowledges that thire of oils dissolve 'normal' films left by other oils, as reported by others. Redline and Royal Purple state the same.

http://www.eliteetc.com/exxonelitefaq1.html

 

[1sttruck]

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002314

I guess this is the LT1. Unless you're reading another post I'll also guess that you're confusing 'spazzer's' UOA with DJs, if you just looked for the next apparent post by DJ. DJ's UOA below shows no fuel problems ?

visc100 11 11.1
H2O 0 0
fuel 0 0
glycol 0 0
soot 0 0
FE 32 25
CR 0 0
PB 14 10
CU 6 15
SN 0 3
AL 11 13
NI 0
AG 0
MN 0
SI 13 11
B 0
NA 2 5
MG 0
CA 0
BA 0
P 0
ZN 0
MO 105 23
TI 0
V 0
K 0 0
OXID 5.4 11.4
NITR 0.8 2.1
SYN 0 0
SAE 30 30
TBN 8.3 7.6

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Wouldnt the calcium compounds in oil neutralize some of the chelant tendencies?

---

Got me swinging. I don't know much about chemistry ..but I've used chelating agents in the reduction of elements in waste streams. I do understand that chelating agents are used to remove calcium and mag from hard water where conventional softening my be not suitable. Perhaps in my ignorance I am using it as a misnomer ..but I've used agents that encapsulate the offending agent (or intended precipitant) making it non-existant to apparent analysis. These were referred to as being chelants. I've also used cationic, anaionic, and long chain polymers of high molecular weight in clarification/floculation processes ..and those indeed made sludge ..by design. I've never used surfactants. My only experience with them is when our plant began using a new line of surfactants ..and this formed an emmulisification in our bio-lagoon, forming a surface psuedo-foam of all the suspended particles in the liquid.

So maybe Auto-Rx does just turn an ahering sludge into a mobile non-adhering sludge

Like I said, I'm under-educated in a few things ..that's one reason I'm here (note from other self, "shhh..they're on to you!!"

)

 

[Terry]

Of course being under secrecy from testing Auto-RX I cannot speak to the specific chemical constituents of the product. I can say that no surfactants are used in the formula and as far as silence on that subject well, sometimes silence means there ain't nuthin to say 'bout it.


That is the analysis of the LT1 I interpreted earlier today and he did have a fuel dilute issue. Add the dirt ingress and you get the signature we see. Not Auto-RX induced.
Note that the fuels testing indicating 0 - 0.5 depending on test protocal does not indicate that fuel dilute was not a issue during the drain, just that they flashed none during the sample analysis. Another twisted variable in oil analysis. There are however other indicators for indicating fuel dilute that is intermittant or cooked out if diluted early on in the interval.

[ March 08, 2005, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]

 

[DJ]

Oh come on guys why did I have to stumble on this here?

I am still in the AutoRX rinse and now I guess I will be sending out a sample from that drain as well. Fuel trims on this car look very good so a fuel dilution problem I would guess would be caused by the 175K on the injectors and them maybe leaking after shutdown, will hookup a gauge to be sure. I will also replace the air filter and check connections. I knew my numbers were not great but I did not want to think they were problems till I saw the same sort of thing once settled into a normal routine, the first set of numbers were unknown oil unknown interval since I had just bought the car so saying the second set was high due to AutoRX was jumping the gun a bit, they weren't any higher than the first mystery drain. As far as the SI the roads I travel have been heavily salted and dirted depending on exactly where I am, when things get melting it all becomes an airborn spray.

How that affects things I do not know other than like I said I will change the airfilter though it looked decent, maybe somebody had blown it clean in the past and my problem is as simple as that on the dirt side. My car really is a bad case to study since the 173K on it before I bought it are a total mystery, no idea on the history.

Thank you guys, Terry in particular for taking the time to look this over.

 

[Gary Allan]

The best way to add weight to a theory is to attempt to disprove it ..or attempt to prove an alternate/counter line of thought ...and fail. This part is missing.

1sttruck has done some very extensive research that throws conjecture into this mix ...but I don't see the conjecture verification that I need to see for proper theorum formation.

Bugshu ..thanks ..but keep in mind that I could probably make the act of flushing a toilet sound like a marvelous mechannical process. That is, I've been described as a "silver tongued devil" on more than one occasion.

Although I consider myself intelligent (don't we all?) ..I'm not well educated. That is, intelligence has to be coupled with knowledge and/or experience. The art of (civil) adversarial debate is one of my processes of learning. As you observe, I merely challenge 1sttrucks assertions ..putting the onus upon him to bring me (and hopefully others) to the fountain.

The thing I am seeking in this ongoing debate is the revelation of

and feeling

. Once I'm brought to the level of enlightenment ..where I can clearly see ..then there will be a never ending

for the assistance in making the journey.

So we're here on the "roundy-round" and no one appears to be getting any closer to the finish line