best synthetic oil

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
.

I simply challanged Pablo's blanket and incorrect statment about wear rates!



If someone can show me where I made a blanket statement I would be grateful. Hmm...NEW GMC. 20W-50. -40°F. Don't use 20W-50 in this vehicle in Minnesota in the winter. Seemed pretty specific to me.

I'm out of here. Use the correct viscosity for the situation - going higher in viscosity in such situations as above tend to show increased wear. I'm no thin head, but just Dr. AE Haas's work should be enough. The numbers I look at in UOA's show this. The compilation of data post shows this. And Amsoil's actual measurement data shows this. I'm done. Believe what you want.

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Trvir500 - In "dusty conditions" - (extremes) most wear from the entry of dust is done at the ring/piston/wall area. Oil viscosity plays a minimal role here in this case

In very dusty operations it is common to use a centrifugal pre-cleaner than spins much of the dust out first. Then the best filtration possible takes over according the type/quality ofthe element used. Oil bath after-cleaners work very well in this regard too depending on the application

Rapid wear can occur when intake tract sealing is insufficient. Two stoke diesels can wear out an engine in an hour or two depending on the magnitude of the lack of sealing and the type of "dust". In these cases the bottom end of the engine is rarely compromised from a wear viewpoint regardless of the lubricant's viscosity


Yes Hillary,

I agree with you 100%. I may have taken the long way around but I believe in my post I said exactly what you have just said although I didn't point out that it IS the piston and ring area which would see the most wear IF the air filter isn't in good condition and the intake is not sealed properly.

As I stated at the end of my post. A lubricants viscosity is really a moot point when it comes to dusty conditions.

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
.

I simply challanged Pablo's blanket and incorrect statment about wear rates!



If someone can show me where I made a blanket statement I would be grateful. Hmm...NEW GMC. 20W-50. -40°F. Don't use 20W-50 in this vehicle in Minnesota in the winter. Seemed pretty specific to me.

I'm out of here. Use the correct viscosity for the situation - going higher in viscosity in such situations as above tend to show increased wear. I'm no thin head, but just Dr. AE Haas's work should be enough. The numbers I look at in UOA's show this. The compilation of data post shows this. And Amsoil's actual measurement data shows this. I'm done. Believe what you want.


Hello Pablo,

I don't think there is anyone including myself that would recommend 20-50 in Minnesota in winter time. It is obvious that could cause increased engine wear until the engine warms up and I don't think anyone needs a study to prove it. It is common sense.

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
I think you just stated why the air filter can be more important than the oil filter!

You bet! It's common sense.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
20W50 would work fine in the big Vintage Caddy, especially in the desert during the summer. Those engines aren't as tight as the ones today. I would still probably use a 10W30 or 10W40 in the winter though..

JMO
Frank D


I see this posted so much and it's just not true. Clearances have remained about the same since the 60s.

 

[FrankN4]

Where I live, a hot summer day will go just over 100F. A cold winter night will go to 10F.

I have used nothing but 15W-50 since 1990, even in Chrysler that called for 5W-20. It had 188,800 on it when my daughter traded it. I still run my Toyota pickup with 300,300 15W-50 miles on it. We use a Chevrolet Cavalier with 207,800 15W-50 on it every day. I have a new 2008 Silverado and it is just now 4850 miles, on its third oil, and yes, 15W-50. The 2008 Silverado calls for a PF 47 or PF 52 filter, I use a WIX 51036.

All of these vehicles will start on the coldest winter morning literally before you could let go of the key. But, the 15W-50 that I use is Mobil 1 and it has excellent cold flow and a 100C cSt of only 18.1, a thinner 15W-50.

 

[OVERKILL]

I know a guy that ran 20w50 in a 350 Chev up here in the winter. Didn't roll over all that hot, but it didn't succumb to epic engine failure either.

Dear Jesus, did it have some insane cold oil pressure though.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
20W50 would work fine in the big Vintage Caddy, especially in the desert during the summer. Those engines aren't as tight as the ones today. I would still probably use a 10W30 or 10W40 in the winter though..

JMO
Frank D


I see this posted so much and it's just not true. Clearances have remained about the same since the 60s.


The machining process isn't more accurate, therefore the measurements better and more exact? The alloys and materials used are better. The tolerances less due to better machinery, and margin of error less today than it was in the 60's and 70's? That translates to a tighter better fitting internals of an engine. It might be slight but it is definitely better made and more precise. Remember we are dealing with thousandths of an inch. The technology has taken a quantum leap since those days, so has engine oil and its ability to protect. There are better choices than 20W50 for a MN winter, especially in a new vehicle like the OP was asking about. Don't forget EFI meters fuel better than a carburetor so in a properly running EFI engine fuel dilution is less than back in the days of that Caddy.

I noticed you live in Kentucky, I'm sure it gets pretty cold, but not as cold nor as long a winter as MN. The 20W50 would fare better in a KY winter than a MN winter. The flip side is the 20W50 might do better in a hot KY summer. Me I'd stick to what the OM says if I were the OP.

JMO,
Frank D

 

[endeavor to persevere]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere


I thought about that. Off hand I can't think of a truck that has a 3.8.

Don


Dodge Dakota


Dodge Dekota has a 3.9

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
20W50 would work fine in the big Vintage Caddy, especially in the desert during the summer. Those engines aren't as tight as the ones today. I would still probably use a 10W30 or 10W40 in the winter though..

JMO
Frank D


I see this posted so much and it's just not true. Clearances have remained about the same since the 60s.


The machining process isn't more accurate, therefore the measurements better and more exact? The alloys and materials used are better. The tolerances less due to better machinery, and margin of error less today than it was in the 60's and 70's? That translates to a tighter better fitting internals of an engine. It might be slight but it is definitely better made and more precise. Remember we are dealing with thousandths of an inch. The technology has taken a quantum leap since those days, so has engine oil and its ability to protect. There are better choices than 20W50 for a MN winter, especially in a new vehicle like the OP was asking about. Don't forget EFI meters fuel better than a carburetor so in a properly running EFI engine fuel dilution is less than back in the days of that Caddy.

I noticed you live in Kentucky, I'm sure it gets pretty cold, but not as cold nor as long a winter as MN. The 20W50 would fare better in a KY winter than a MN winter. The flip side is the 20W50 might do better in a hot KY summer. Me I'd stick to what the OM says if I were the OP.

JMO,
Frank D


It's possible manufacturers are able to hit the mark more accurately, I don't know. But the specs have remained the same. You could take the flip side of that argument and say some clearances on old engines were tighter due worse machining.

Bearing clearnace seems to be a function of how large the journals are and piston to wall seems to be based more on the material of the pistons and diameter of the bore.

One thing remains the same throughout the years and that's the specs for bearing clearances. Try it for yourself, look up a 60's vintage engine and then look up it's cousin today.

 

[demarpaint]

I think the dimensions are the same as you said, but they hit the mark much more accurately, less slop. I also think the actual casting of the engine block, bore dimensions, and materials used are better.

We both have valid points!

Frank D

 

[lazaro]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
.

I simply challanged Pablo's blanket and incorrect statment about wear rates!



If someone can show me where I made a blanket statement I would be grateful. Hmm...NEW GMC. 20W-50. -40°F. Don't use 20W-50 in this vehicle in Minnesota in the winter. Seemed pretty specific to me.

I'm out of here. Use the correct viscosity for the situation - going higher in viscosity in such situations as above tend to show increased wear. I'm no thin head, but just Dr. AE Haas's work should be enough. The numbers I look at in UOA's show this. The compilation of data post shows this. And Amsoil's actual measurement data shows this. I'm done. Believe what you want.

Varibles are in the millions when it comes to motor oils.
one thing that is constant in cold climate, the first 20 minutes of cold engine start up.
nobody can escape the wear at cold start up.
you can do your best at picking the proper lube for your ride.
but fact is thick lube 20w50 wont reach the hottest part of the engine at cold start up
Quote:
i/e piston ring pack
until the engine reaches full operating temperature, how long would it take for that to happen?
what if you only have a 25 minute ride to work? and it is 20F outside? what if you made that same trip every day for months?
does your engine ever reach full operating temp? I doubt it!
varibles are infinte here so dont claim you know it all, the ones who claim they do!
I have taken apart over 500 gasoline engines in 22 years,
I have not seen it all cause every few months I see some new way to screw up an engine, but I have seen my fair share of upper cylinder wear from all types of reasons
I use 5w30 year round, where most like to use 20w50 cause of the Miami heat. nobody is wrong, just misinformed

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
for those that have been involved in this Thread you may have thought my challenging Pablo about his statement was unfair - only you can judge that

The problem is that such statements concerning wear rates are often made as "absolute" and in many cases by primarily using singular or groups of single pass (SP) UOAs as the sole parameter for judging the wear rates - and in Pablo's case this has mostly been confirmed by his last post here

UOAs are a great way to evaluate a lubricant's condition - but SP UOAs are virtually useless in determining wear rates. Trending the UOA wear rates within an engine family when using a similar lubricant is helpful but they will still not be a predictor for a sudden failure. The tabulated results from such trended UOAs can be a helpful tool in isolating excessive wear in certain components or groups of components - I have hundreds on my database
However they will not pick up camshaft corrosion or indeed some other elements of rapid component failure or engine deterioration

In comparing engine lubricants against wear rates a trended UOA base is helpful but a teardown inspection and measure up or weighing is the practical way for accuracy. As well RATT (and other) processes can now measure wear rates in real time and are used by many engine and engine component manufacturers and Oil Companies. Some Oil Companies use these processes in consort with the engine manufacturer to brew a suitably optimised formulation

The API, ACEA and the engine manufactuers do allow some formulation variances within very strict and published guidelines during the currency of the Certification or Approval

Cummins for example believes that UOAs would need to be trended for nearly 1m miles before a reasonable picture emerges - and then it would need to be accurately replicated again for even a very basic comparison to be made. And there would still be question marks over many aspects of it all!!

The other factor concerns the condemnation levels set by engine/component manufacturers. A common one is Iron @ 150ppm! Many on BITOG believe that they can evaluate engine lubricants by making judgements (and statements) based on variances of relatively small ppm numbers over an OCI or two. The bottom line is that they can't!

This is why the fleet testing of formulations is part of the API Certification process and why engine manufacturers and their component suppliers conduct extensive tests (many tests are engine family specific) before they Approve and List the lubricants that they do. Engine wear rates are a vital part of this and engine tear down inspection is the usually the final task in the process. And with all due respect for Mr Haas and his opinions I have not seen any confirming evidence of engine tear down inspections at all

As stated earlier I would only use the viscosity prescribed by the engine's manufacturer for the prevailing ambient range of temperature

To simply say that one viscosity lubricant will lead to more wear than another is incorrect unless the required indepth research and testing confirms it! There is no doubt that the optimal performance from a modern engine will only be attained when using the correct viscosity lubricant as prescribed for the task and temperature range

Over the years that I have been invloved in BITOG many incorrect claims have been made by some purveyors of lubricants. A reality check debate is then IMO always helpful!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
for those that have been involved in this Thread you may have thought my challenging Pablo about his statement was unfair - only you can judge that

The problem is that such statements concerning wear rates are often made as "absolute" and in many cases by primarily using singular or groups of single pass (SP) UOAs as the sole parameter for judging the wear rates - and in Pablo's case this has mostly been confirmed by his last post here

UOAs are a great way to evaluate a lubricant's condition - but SP UOAs are virtually useless in determining wear rates. Trending the UOA wear rates within an engine family when using a similar lubricant is helpful but they will still not be a predictor for a sudden failure. The tabulated results from such trended UOAs can be a helpful tool in isolating excessive wear in certain components or groups of components - I have hundreds on my database
However they will not pick up camshaft corrosion or indeed some other elements of rapid component failure or engine deterioration

In comparing engine lubricants against wear rates a trended UOA base is helpful but a teardown inspection and measure up or weighing is the practical way for accuracy. As well RATT (and other) processes can now measure wear rates in real time and are used by many engine and engine component manufacturers and Oil Companies. Some Oil Companies use these processes in consort with the engine manufacturer to brew a suitably optimised formulation

The API, ACEA and the engine manufactuers do allow some formulation variances within very strict and published guidelines during the currency of the Certification or Approval

Cummins for example believes that UOAs would need to be trended for nearly 1m miles before a reasonable picture emerges - and then it would need to be accurately replicated again for even a very basic comparison to be made. And there would still be question marks over many aspects of it all!!

The other factor concerns the condemnation levels set by engine/component manufacturers. A common one is Iron @ 150ppm! Many on BITOG believe that they can evaluate engine lubricants by making judgements (and statements) based on variances of relatively small ppm numbers over an OCI or two. The bottom line is that they can't!

This is why the fleet testing of formulations is part of the API Certification process and why engine manufacturers and their component suppliers conduct extensive tests (many tests are engine family specific) before they Approve and List the lubricants that they do. Engine wear rates are a vital part of this and engine tear down inspection is the usually the final task in the process. And with all due respect for Mr Haas and his opinions I have not seen any confirming evidence of engine tear down inspections at all

As stated earlier I would only use the viscosity prescribed by the engine's manufacturer for the prevailing ambient range of temperature

To simply say that one viscosity lubricant will lead to more wear than another is incorrect unless the required indepth research and testing confirms it! There is no doubt that the optimal performance from a modern engine will only be attained when using the correct viscosity lubricant as prescribed for the task and temperature range

Over the years that I have been invloved in BITOG many incorrect claims have been made by some purveyors of lubricants. A reality check debate is then IMO always helpful!


Doug:

You just touched; rather LANDED, very heavily on the M1 "iron issue" with the 5w30, which, as mentioned in your post, is a point of contention using single-pass UOA's.

And you are not the only one to mention that the only REAL way to gauge whether there is actually any "real" additional wear; or if the "higher than" iron numbers are ACTUALLY an indication of wear, is through tear-down testing. Which VERY few people on here have actually done.

This is why I often feel that people are doing a great disservice to XOM's products; especially the 5w30, when the condemn it based on UOA results.

These are not tear-down results.

GM has done tear-down testing. They run M1 as the factory fill.
Honda has done tear-down testing. This was the first oil to meet HTO-06.

Why is it that the largest oil company in the world, with the greatest resources and who is almost always the first to meet (or exceed) a new specification when it arrives; is the factory fill on more high performance engines than any other oil in existence, having their product line condemned based on a single testing methodology ($40.00 UOA) which seems to take precedence over the MILLIONS of dollars in testing, the MILLIONS of dollars spent on R&D, the MILLIONS of dollars getting the certs and approvals and the MILLIONS of miles accrued in fleet testing?

As I've said before. I know it's always in fashion to hate on Mobil 1. But there is a LOT more to evaluating an oil's performance than a UOA. And you seem to have nailed that with your post Doug.

You've done the testing. You've witnessed the tear-down results. To me, that data means a lot more than somebody's OPINION founded on a couple UOA's.

BuickGN's results, again, based on his TEAR DOWN experience with his own car; his results completely go against the grain for the UOA trenders. But his results are FAR more REAL.

I've torn my junk down as well. I've never had the bottom end out, but I haven't had to. It still has 38psi hot with 5w30 in it. Bearings are healthy. Cam bearings look spotless. The entire bloody engine does. That's something a UOA isn't going to tell you. You aren't going to know what your cylinder bores look like unless you've had the heads off. You aren't going to know what your cam bearings look like unless you've had the cam out.

This is not a knock at any other oil out there. I want to make that clear to anybody else reading this post. It is a knock at the CONCLUSIONS people seem to reach using a SINGLE testing methodology and not taking into account the potential err in doing so.

UOA's are a tool. And, like any other tool, they cannot be used to do everything.

 

[wgtoys]

Overkill: You seem to have great confidence in the dedication to quality and fair dealing by some of the world's largest companies. I wish I could share your view.

We all know that massively large, rich companies sometimes do things which are not exactly in the best interest of their customers, employees, suppliers or investors.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: wgtoys
Overkill: You seem to have great confidence in the dedication to quality and fair dealing by some of the world's largest companies. I wish I could share your view.

We all know that massively large, rich companies sometimes do things which are not exactly in the best interest of their customers, employees, suppliers or investors.




It's not that I have faith in these companies per se; I have faith in the fact that their product has been tested to meet/exceed so many bloody tests by so many bloody manufacturers and approval agencies that the possibility of it being sub-par is very much impossible.

Is that not why these testing methodologies exist in the first place? To GAUGE a product's performance so that people USING an engine that REQUIRES an oil that meets a specification can look for that approval and buy that product with CONFIDENCE?

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
OVERK1LL - I only posted on the subject because we now have a large "audience" - it has grown amazingly so over the last several years, and the subject of wear rates is treated emotively/subjectively by some people without supporting backup data. Many BITOG people are lubricant "friends" but many may not have had the experiences of the past debates on here to refer to

In one engine family I allowed a maximum of 221ppm Iron to occur on a number of occasions. The average at OCI was 130ppm - at teardown after 1m kms all parts were within factory dimensions - the engine now has over 2.5m kms on it - untouched

Yet on here we see people "scrambled" over a hike of 8ppm or 10ppm over one lubricant or another. The real World is a little different

UOAs can be a great tool for the Engineer (in any field where lubricants are used) - they are simply a good source of entertainment for many BITOG supporters and we should perhaps see them as such

IMHO we should not see them as the great predictor of engine life - one lubricant against another - because in direct terms they are NOT!

And as you indirectly mention - where are all the engines with so much Iron wear they have failed?? - in or out of Warranty??

It was the same with M1 0W-40 some years ago where a certain Oil Company's marketers on here predicted excessive wear (cams etc) and rapid engine failures due to "shearing". Well back then I indicated to them that it will never happen and it has not happened! The same "drama" was on many Porsche Boards too and about ZDDP levels in Approved lubricants as well. Well they were wrong - the World did not collapse and engines did not disintergrate - we move on!

Thanks for your Post OVERK1LL

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
OVERK1LL - I only posted on the subject because we now have a large "audience" - it has grown amazingly so over the last several years, and the subject of wear rates is treated emotively/subjectively by some people without supporting backup data. Many BITOG people are lubricant "friends" but many may not have had the experiences of the past debates on here to refer to

In one engine family I allowed a maximum of 221ppm Iron to occur on a number of occasions. The average at OCI was 130ppm - at teardown after 1m kms all parts were within factory dimensions - the engine now has over 2.5m kms on it - untouched

Yet on here we see people "scrambled" over a hike of 8ppm or 10ppm over one lubricant or another. The real World is a little different

UOAs can be a great tool for the Engineer (in any field where lubricants are used) - they are simply a good source of entertainment for many BITOG supporters and we should perhaps see them as such

IMHO we should not see them as the great predictor of engine life - one lubricant against another - because in direct terms they are NOT!

And as you indirectly mention - where are all the engines with so much Iron wear they have failed?? - in or out of Warranty??

It was the same with M1 0W-40 some years ago where a certain Oil Company's marketers on here predicted excessive wear (cams etc) and rapid engine failures due to "shearing". Well back then I indicated to them that it will never happen and it has not happened! The same "drama" was on many Porsche Boards too and about ZDDP levels in Approved lubricants as well. Well they were wrong - the World did not collapse and engines did not disintergrate - we move on!

Thanks for your Post OVERK1LL



Yup, I've never seen so many people on a forum,complaining about iron wear findings in their UOA

I've used Mobil 1 synthetic in my vehicles for almost 10 years and have NEVER had any mechanical related failure using Mobil 1 synthetic. But, when certain people see the high iron content that Mobil ! has in the UOA,they freak out and then someone else pops in and say" you better switch to PP,it'll be a alot better oil!"

I've switched to Amsoil,only to try it out,not due to the "high iron content" that many people freak out about on this forum.

Too many people worry about waaaay to much on these forums.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
for those that have been involved in this Thread you may have thought my challenging Pablo about his statement was unfair - only you can judge that

The problem is that such statements concerning wear rates are often made as "absolute" and in many cases by primarily using singular or groups of single pass (SP) UOAs as the sole parameter for judging the wear rates - and in Pablo's case this has mostly been confirmed by his last post here

UOAs are a great way to evaluate a lubricant's condition - but SP UOAs are virtually useless in determining wear rates. Trending the UOA wear rates within an engine family when using a similar lubricant is helpful but they will still not be a predictor for a sudden failure. The tabulated results from such trended UOAs can be a helpful tool in isolating excessive wear in certain components or groups of components - I have hundreds on my database
However they will not pick up camshaft corrosion or indeed some other elements of rapid component failure or engine deterioration

In comparing engine lubricants against wear rates a trended UOA base is helpful but a teardown inspection and measure up or weighing is the practical way for accuracy. As well RATT (and other) processes can now measure wear rates in real time and are used by many engine and engine component manufacturers and Oil Companies. Some Oil Companies use these processes in consort with the engine manufacturer to brew a suitably optimised formulation

The API, ACEA and the engine manufactuers do allow some formulation variances within very strict and published guidelines during the currency of the Certification or Approval

Cummins for example believes that UOAs would need to be trended for nearly 1m miles before a reasonable picture emerges - and then it would need to be accurately replicated again for even a very basic comparison to be made. And there would still be question marks over many aspects of it all!!

The other factor concerns the condemnation levels set by engine/component manufacturers. A common one is Iron @ 150ppm! Many on BITOG believe that they can evaluate engine lubricants by making judgements (and statements) based on variances of relatively small ppm numbers over an OCI or two. The bottom line is that they can't!

This is why the fleet testing of formulations is part of the API Certification process and why engine manufacturers and their component suppliers conduct extensive tests (many tests are engine family specific) before they Approve and List the lubricants that they do. Engine wear rates are a vital part of this and engine tear down inspection is the usually the final task in the process. And with all due respect for Mr Haas and his opinions I have not seen any confirming evidence of engine tear down inspections at all

As stated earlier I would only use the viscosity prescribed by the engine's manufacturer for the prevailing ambient range of temperature

To simply say that one viscosity lubricant will lead to more wear than another is incorrect unless the required indepth research and testing confirms it! There is no doubt that the optimal performance from a modern engine will only be attained when using the correct viscosity lubricant as prescribed for the task and temperature range

Over the years that I have been invloved in BITOG many incorrect claims have been made by some purveyors of lubricants. A reality check debate is then IMO always helpful!


Doug:

You just touched; rather LANDED, very heavily on the M1 "iron issue" with the 5w30, which, as mentioned in your post, is a point of contention using single-pass UOA's.

And you are not the only one to mention that the only REAL way to gauge whether there is actually any "real" additional wear; or if the "higher than" iron numbers are ACTUALLY an indication of wear, is through tear-down testing. Which VERY few people on here have actually done.

This is why I often feel that people are doing a great disservice to XOM's products; especially the 5w30, when the condemn it based on UOA results.

These are not tear-down results.

GM has done tear-down testing. They run M1 as the factory fill.
Honda has done tear-down testing. This was the first oil to meet HTO-06.

Why is it that the largest oil company in the world, with the greatest resources and who is almost always the first to meet (or exceed) a new specification when it arrives; is the factory fill on more high performance engines than any other oil in existence, having their product line condemned based on a single testing methodology ($40.00 UOA) which seems to take precedence over the MILLIONS of dollars in testing, the MILLIONS of dollars spent on R&D, the MILLIONS of dollars getting the certs and approvals and the MILLIONS of miles accrued in fleet testing?

As I've said before. I know it's always in fashion to hate on Mobil 1. But there is a LOT more to evaluating an oil's performance than a UOA. And you seem to have nailed that with your post Doug.

You've done the testing. You've witnessed the tear-down results. To me, that data means a lot more than somebody's OPINION founded on a couple UOA's.

BuickGN's results, again, based on his TEAR DOWN experience with his own car; his results completely go against the grain for the UOA trenders. But his results are FAR more REAL.

I've torn my junk down as well. I've never had the bottom end out, but I haven't had to. It still has 38psi hot with 5w30 in it. Bearings are healthy. Cam bearings look spotless. The entire bloody engine does. That's something a UOA isn't going to tell you. You aren't going to know what your cylinder bores look like unless you've had the heads off. You aren't going to know what your cam bearings look like unless you've had the cam out.

This is not a knock at any other oil out there. I want to make that clear to anybody else reading this post. It is a knock at the CONCLUSIONS people seem to reach using a SINGLE testing methodology and not taking into account the potential err in doing so.

UOA's are a tool. And, like any other tool, they cannot be used to do everything.


Great posts!

 

[mva]

When I pay a premium price for a high end oil I expect to see low wear rates.