run a killer oil filter (m1, Pureone, Fram extended guard, Bosch w/ filtech) and see if we cant get that FE down to trace. A grp-iii base oil would be better than a PAO for that.
Pure speculation and guessing is not what BITOG is all about.
So first we will need the data that those oil filters will lower Fe , then we will be waiting for the data that shows a group III base oil produces lower Fe in UOA's than Group IV based oils.
Speculation? The "better" filter media will keep the Fe suspension out of the analysis sample, And these brands have already been shown to improve particulate counts in some of our members studies. Just regurgitating what I've read here. Granted the Fe may be solubilised through EP AW action and may be difficult to minimise. I dont think its speculation that PAO is a substandard lubricant in the EP and boundary lubrication regime. So he should try nothing different? Nothing Ventured? Nothing to be done to move the understanding process forward at
his expense providing
our entertainment?!
OK let's step back and digest this for a moment. I'll take it line by line - just to get to root of this.
The "better" filter media will keep the Fe suspension out of the analysis sample
While it is empirically true that the finer media SHOULD "catch" more particulate matter, there is not necessarily a correlation between "better" brands and finer media. Nor is there a direct correlation between dissolved metals in a UOA and the brand of filter.
And these brands have already been shown to improve particulate counts in some of our members studies.
This is not true. And if you think it's true please post the data for the brands you mention. And again see my first point. You changed from ppm of dissolved metals to particulate counts (although it turns out some labs really infer particulate counts)
. Just regurgitating what I've read here.
Well you are selectively regurgitating. Not picking on you, we all do it to some degree. It just should not be passed on as unbiased truth.
Granted the Fe may be solubilised through EP AW action and may be difficult to minimise
Now we are getting somewhere. We don't really know where the Fe came from, and yes some is put in solution via kelation with some AW and other additive chemicals. If we understand something we can seek to control the important parts of it.
I dont think its speculation that PAO is a substandard lubricant in the EP and boundary lubrication regime.
Seems you have read some of those statements. While there is some truth about some pure PAO's, this is just not that difficult of a problem to overcome. Also the way the statements are written, they always seem a bit of an overstatement. "Hopeless boundary lubricant….." is the one I often see. That is utter garbage. Most well compounded PAO base oils have at least 3 levels built in for increasing boundary lubrication. Selecting the correct PAO's, using the correct surfactants, using esters or other polar base oil components, and using other additives (such as stable amines), along with new age AW additives as some of the best AW/EP protectants (that's five!). BUT let's get back to your original statement….
- "A grp-iii base oil would be better than a PAO for that."
And, sir it's simply not true. You have provided no proof. Only regurgitation. I have nothing against Group III oils!! But when people make such seemingly factual statements, proof must be provided. You didn't write "may" or "could". You wrote that statement as fact.
So he should try nothing different? Nothing Ventured? Nothing to be done to move the understanding process forward at his expense providing our entertainment?!
I don't necessarily think he should change oils right away. And yes, we all should understand the process.