Does anyone use Terry Dyson's Analysis??

[QuadDriver]

Originally Posted By: greenjp

As to your last point, I'd consider possibility #3 - they were quite able and perhaps initially willing to provide the proof you requested, but upon a little reflection decided not to waste their time in a pointless internet debate with someone who's mind was already made up and apparently unwilling to consider information that would be contrary to his opinion.

jeff



LOL, if only it were true that way. There are still some around who were around then, and Im sure the posts are archived.

I guess the moral is, if you wanna go on the all encompasing 'net and self proclaim yourself as 'an' or 'the' expert, expect to have your bluff called.

Readers digest version: Mr Expert proffered that he would never buy a used vehicle without a long history of UOAs. Which besides being a load of balderdashtic [censored], was also untrue. Suffice to say, anyone may walk up to a used car seller (private or not) and should they survive the richly deserved punch in the teeth should they demand such hooey, lets see where it gets em.

Suffice to say as an olive branch I offered this test: I had a 1991 chevy Blahzer LT (4.3, 4L60, partridge/pair tree) and a brand new 0 mile crate engine. I offered to donate said vehicle and said engine to the users of this site. Before hand I would mic up some bearings, check cylinder taper, bore blah blah blah. Verify the integrity of the crate motor and start a baseline. Then I would pay the insurance to let any member(s) of bitog drive it to rack the miles and pay for the maint using the oil they specced and the intervals they desired, AND pay for the UOA. After a suitable time of say 50K, 100K whatever (which I why I wanted to use BITOG members as I dont have the time to drive that much in a short period) we will tear it down at my cost in my shop and re-mic everything. Before we displayed the results, any 'experts' who wanted to chime in would give us the best guess on the wear found.

In other words, tell me I have so many ppm of lead or copper in my oil then its a fairly simple 5th grade math caluclation to convert that to a mass and determine how much bearing material is gone.

Zero takers. (Oh wait, let me clarify, there were plenty of people willing to help drive, change oil, even throw in oil) Not one self proclaimed expert was willing to put their reputation where their mouth is. Of course, to this day they are free to prove me wrong, but such an event will never occur.

And no offense, but if you are under an impression that there are engine failures (before a perdiod known as 'long life' has elapsed) due to oil problems (and not lack of putting any in), then you just aint paying attention.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
Readers digest version: Mr Expert proffered that he would never buy a used vehicle without a long history of UOAs. Which besides being a load of balderdashtic [censored], was also untrue. Suffice to say, anyone may walk up to a used car seller (private or not) and should they survive the richly deserved punch in the teeth should they demand such hooey, lets see where it gets em.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Different people have different requirements for used cars (ie, single owner, good maintenance records, etc). This is simply a very stringent one, and I'm not sure how you determined that a person's own requirements would be "[censored]" or untrue. "Deserved punch in the teeth"? That is dumb. "Looked at like they have two heads" maybe

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
Suffice to say as an olive branch I offered this test:...

And no offense, but if you are under an impression that there are engine failures (before a perdiod known as 'long life' has elapsed) due to oil problems (and not lack of putting any in), then you just aint paying attention.

Of course no one took you up on the offer. The test as described proves nothing but the fact that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire point of used oil analysis.

And no offense, but your last point is so wrong it's not even worth discussing. I choose option #3 I proposed earlier.

jeff

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: AEHaas
... automotive lubricants are a fluid field...


Wow! A doctor AND a comedian!

As the doctor points out, Dyson is the real deal. Good work well done; it's good value provided you actually take the advice.

 

[eljefino]

If I had a known bad motor just about to leave warranty, and a dealer was screwing me over with a known defect like a bad intake gasket, or those nissans sucking in precat guts, a Dyson analysis (I hope) would connect the dots in such a way that would look awesome in court suing the punks.

In contrast a bunch of gadfly "nobodies" responding in a UOA thread would not stand up as evidence.

It's the closest I could get to hiring "CSI" with my meager fundage.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
If I had a known bad motor just about to leave warranty, and a dealer was screwing me over with a known defect like a bad intake gasket, or those nissans sucking in precat guts, a Dyson analysis (I hope) would connect the dots in such a way that would look awesome in court suing the punks.

In contrast a bunch of gadfly "nobodies" responding in a UOA thread would not stand up as evidence.

It's the closest I could get to hiring "CSI" with my meager fundage.

Terry has and does testify in court as an expert witness in such matters, and his clients win.

jeff

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
If I could afford it, I would use Terry without hesitation. He is a first class person.


Same here. My first posts here was when I was having "issues" with my 99 Ford and his services SAVED me well into $1000+ due to an out of warranty head gasket leak that his services found very early.

He helped me with correct info and Ford paid for the head gaskets, rent-a-car and such because of the UOA and Terry's service.

Top class guy also!

I miss his input here.

Bill

 

[mikered30]

Why doesn't terry post on here anymore?

 

[TooManyWheels]

Apparently some disagreement with the site over policy, details unknown.

 

[QuadDriver]

Originally Posted By: greenjp
Of course no one took you up on the offer. The test as described proves nothing but the fact that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire point of used oil analysis.


Well this is pretty easy to determine if true or not, so lets explore. Feel free to quote any words I have uttered on the subject at any time, now or then. I will restate with clarity and no ambiguity:

1) what extrapolation can you project to any engine with no noted problems as to its internal wear or longevity via UOA? Answer: exactly none. this was the basis of my test parameters, offered in direct rubuttal to statements made by the 'experts'. And reading recent comments, prolly why the 'expert' no longer posts.

2) what extrapolation can you project to any engine with a noted problem*1 as to its internal wear or longevity via UOA that cannot be verify by "what amounts to a visual inspection" Answer: exactly none.

Lettuce explore a little further. I state with clarity and no ambiguity that on an engine with no problems, a UOA is a waste of money. If you want to 'learn how your engine works' (quoting a UOA website) then RTFM. After that, take it apart. No evidence to prove me wrong has ever been offered. when I tried to gather such evidence, the opponents fled.

I note, from reading here and other places, a UOA will tell you if you have fuel dilution. Well, this is true. But if you had fuel dilution on any car produced since 1990 *2 then it was readily apparent long before you ever changed the oil. In fact, for certain on any car produced since 1996 it had your dash lit up by a christmas tree. If this escaped anyone, then they are an idiot who would benefit from perhaps not even owning a car, let alone driving or working on one. Or put simply: for the 99% of those reading: do they REALLY think they have a choke?*3

I note, from reading here and other places, a UOA will tell you if you have coolant contamination. Well, this is true. But if you do, in any significant amount*4 then it is READILY APPARENT via visual inspection. Its really quite binary: my coolant bottle is low, where did it go? leaking to the ground? no? uh oh. If you need a UOA in this instance to tell you what you should have already found out from less expenditure of a) money b) time then that person would be an idiot who would benefit from perhaps not even owning a car, let alone driving or working on one. *5

I note, from reading here and other places, a UOA will tell you if you have dirt contamination. Well this is true. But if you do, in any significant amound then it is readily apparent via visual inspection that your air filter is either missing or damaged, or someone shot a hole in the engine. If you need a UOA in this instance to tell you what you should have already found out from less expenditure of a) money b) time then that person would be an idiot who would benefit from perhaps not even owning a car, let alone driving or working on one. *5


What else can a UOA tell us? The condition of the oil? not a problem if the proper oil was changed at the proper time (see my first post in this thread) Other metals? so what. As the miles go up, bits of the motor come off. Its called getting old. It wont be stopped, prevented or even slowed down. Hence the STRICT purpose of my test and why he declined to back up his statements.

He testifies in court? then please, feel free, use FINDLAW and show us the cases and the exact nature of his involvment. Never let a few facts get in the way or a good argument right?

Mr Dyson, et al are free to prove me wrong at any time. Publicly. The fact that such invitations have been ignored speaks volumes.

Quote:

And no offense, but your last point is so wrong it's not even worth discussing. I choose option #3 I proposed earlier.

jeff


Translation: I have no basis with which to discuss it, so I wont.

Granted, using *5 as stated below, I am willing to give people a pass where need be. but when you speak with authority on a specific subject, you had best bring your A-game. For example, you claim to be from Germantown Md. Good. know it well, used to live there. Giving say, a 2 hour drive, I also know all of the salvage yards in a 2 hr radius. Salvage yards, are where cars and machinery go to die. Given that Im the guy who picks thru them looking for specific arcane pieces, I am of a position to speak of the scrap engine pile. The pile where entities affected by motor oil (namely - motors) are housed until meltdown day. Aside from the rare true mechanical failure, to the lack of maint failure to the lack of coolant failure (which can also be construed as lack of maint) this pile is a fractional percent of the still salvagable motors on the property. We inject appx 12M new motors each year into the population and history shows that unless we willfully kill them (via CFC) or neglectfully kill them (lack of maint)*6 there just aint that many oopsies and even if 100% of the oopsies are due to failure of motor oil that a UOA could have warned us about, it is still, as I said, noise in the data.

If you have dissenting evidence, show it. We wont bite.

To date, I really only, off the top of my head count only 3 instances where the 'death card' is played with respect to lubricants. they are, in order of severity:
1) VW TDI diesels and the 505.01/507.00 spec
2) Various ford modulars and the 5w20 syn requirement from the late 90's/ early 00's
3) Chryco trannys needing ATF+4 and the astute will point out that this example aint even a motor or motor oil.

All the rest seem fairly fault tolerant as to brand, grade and weight of the lubricant.

things that make you go hmmmm.

UOA foamers are the automotive equivalent to 12/12/12 fanatics IMO. that is my story, and I am sticking to it.

Notes:

1: We can define a noted problem to anything a rational user would discover as a matter of rote, not waiting 'x' miles for the next oil change. Loss of coolant, decreased mileage, funny smells, sounds, squirrels where they should not be etc. Smart people, or smart peoples mechanics will generally fix the noted problem, rather than sit on it for 'x' miles until the next oil change. Perhaps I give the population too much credit?

2: The last car sold in the US in any appreciable number with a carb was IIRC the GM B wagons with the Olds 307, E4ME carb and a version of the 2004R tranny. Of course one may take me to task for my definition of 'in any appreciable number'.

3: If the motor in question happens to be a mower, snowblower atv etc and the user is too dumb to take off the choke given the visual and aural clues as to its misuse...well...do the math

4: ALL, without qualification, ALL liquid cooled engines will have some coolant in the oil. But if the amount is so small it escapes visual detection, even over time, then it is of no consequence. when it is squirted on the undersides of the pistons, it will vaporize and be eaten by the PCV system. the logical implication of this section is required to be understood. Read it again for comprehension.

5: As I stated in my first post, not everyone can be an ace mechanic. that is a given. Those people should therefore pay ace mechanics. Ace mechanics are not mysterious. We do not live in a vacuum. the automobile or nay, the workings of any engine have been around for well over 100 years and the understanding of same ranks up there with 'a glass of water'

6: And of course sometimes we crash them so badly they end up on the same pile.

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
....In contrast a bunch of gadfly "nobodies" responding in a UOA thread would not stand up as evidence.


Nobodies? Gadfly Nobodies?!! That's it, I'm going to the Off Topic Forum and start me a "Goodbye BITOG" Thread!!!

 

[gathermewool]

QuadDriver, not every one here sends out samples for analysis, then adds up all of the particles until they equal a bearing. There are definitely those who see ppm increases in wear metals as troublesome, but not me. For me, the UOA allows me to use normally-price oils at extended intervals in my turbo Subie with out fear. With out fear of failure? I base that not on the oil analysis, but the state of tune, which I also monitor. No, the UOA tells me how the OIL is doing and whether I can extend the interval or cut back a bit.

The caveat is that an analysis might not show actual, normal wear, but could possibly indicate a casualty condition, revealing certain indicators for coolant or excessive bearing wear that hadn't been there in the preceding samples.

IMO, not even an ace mechanic can simply look at, taste or smell an oil and tell you how many more miles it's good for. Sure, a pitch black, reaking-of-fuel oil with a few curdled chunks might be a bit obvious, but from dark to light, deciding how much longer an oil can go is something that I believe only an analysis can show.

Finally, regardless of the peace-of-mind factor and ability to gauge intervals on the analysis results, I enjoy reading the reports, fine-tuning things and hearing what those here on BITOG have to say. I have used Terry for the past four samples to get a good base line. He's provided a lot of insight and given some good advice. I've chosen to continue using his RAW service from now on because, while I value his opinion, I don't find it necessary right now, since the worst I have to deal with is fuel trim issues causing excessive fuel dilution, which doesn't warrant an expert's opinion. If something looks odd and I can't, in my limited lube knowledge, figure it out, I'll pay for my ACE to.

 

[greenjp]

The more you write the more I'm convinced of two things - 1) you truly do have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of used fluid analysis, and 2) people with less patience than I would certainly choose not to enter into a debate, or accept the silly terms of a poorly conceived "experiment", to prove themselves to someone who clearly has made up their mind and is unwilling to consider facts or data contrary to their opinions. After all, who can argue with an "ace mechanic"?

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
1) what extrapolation can you project to any engine with no noted problems as to its internal wear or longevity via UOA? Answer: exactly none.

You can asses the relative wear indicators from one sample to the next and you can note deviations from trends. This can help fine tune product selection, maintenance intervals, and point to emerging problems. This may enable you to get a longer service life, or achieve the same service life at a lower maintenance cost.

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
2) what extrapolation can you project to any engine with a noted problem*1 as to its internal wear or longevity via UOA that cannot be verify by "what amounts to a visual inspection" Answer: exactly none.

You incorrectly assume that any "noted problem" would manifest in such a way as to get the attention of the operator. This is not necessarily true, as modern ECUs are quite capable of adjusting for many things that can mask issues.

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
Lettuce explore a little further. I state with clarity and no ambiguity that on an engine with no problems, a UOA is a waste of money. If you want to 'learn how your engine works' (quoting a UOA website) then RTFM. After that, take it apart. No evidence to prove me wrong has ever been offered. when I tried to gather such evidence, the opponents fled.

What's wrong with learning how things work? What's wrong with indulging a hobby? I'd suggest that posting these silly screeds on a "oil enthusiast" website is a complete waste of time, that I imagine both of us could put to more productive endeavors, but here we are

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
I note, from reading here and other places, a UOA will tell you if you have fuel dilution. Well, this is true. But if you had fuel dilution on any car produced since 1990 *2 then it was readily apparent long before you ever changed the oil. In fact, for certain on any car produced since 1996 it had your dash lit up by a christmas tree.

This is so demonstrably false it brings into further question everything you say. This site alone is full of posted UOAs of cars with fuel dilution issues that do not throw CELs or otherwise exhibit undesirable behavoir. My car is one of them. You may remember this whole set of topics about fuel diluting Audis - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1414522/

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
I note, from reading here and other places, a UOA will tell you if you have coolant contamination. Well, this is true. But if you do, in any significant amount*4 then it is READILY APPARENT via visual inspection. Its really quite binary: my coolant bottle is low, where did it go? leaking to the ground? no? uh oh. If you need a UOA in this instance to tell you what you should have already found out from less expenditure of a) money b) time then that person would be an idiot who would benefit from perhaps not even owning a car, let alone driving or working on one.

Ok, so UOA is another tool for finding this problem. Maybe a UOA is less expensive than taking it in to an "ace mechanic" to have it checked out

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
I note, from reading here and other places, a UOA will tell you if you have dirt contamination. Well this is true. But if you do, in any significant amound then it is readily apparent via visual inspection that your air filter is either missing or damaged, or someone shot a hole in the engine. If you need a UOA in this instance to tell you what you should have already found out from less expenditure of a) money b) time then that person would be an idiot who would benefit from perhaps not even owning a car, let alone driving or working on one.

UOA will also provide information about the service life of the air filter, useful for determining a useful and economical maintenance interval.


Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
What else can a UOA tell us? The condition of the oil? not a problem if the proper oil was changed at the proper time (see my first post in this thread) Other metals? so what. As the miles go up, bits of the motor come off. Its called getting old. It wont be stopped, prevented or even slowed down. Hence the STRICT purpose of my test and why he declined to back up his statements.

Ah, but with many engines failing despite using the "proper oil" at the "proper time" (see sludge - Saab, Chrysler, Toyota/Lexus, VW, etc) there are certainly instances where the "proper" approach may prove insufficient. UOA is a way to find out. Also helps for fine tuning maintenance intervals.

Question - what is your opinion of the use of used fluids analysis in industries such as ship operation, heavy machinery maintenance, fleet maintenance, etc? How about by racing teams, or owners of exotic/expensive automobiles?



Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
...We inject appx 12M new motors each year into the population and history shows that unless we willfully kill them (via CFC) or neglectfully kill them (lack of maint)*6 there just aint that many oopsies and even if 100% of the oopsies are due to failure of motor oil that a UOA could have warned us about, it is still, as I said, noise in the data.

Again, fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of UOA. It is not simply for the avoidance of catastrophic failure or severely degraded service life, though it certainly can help with those to things (not at the expense of other good maintenance and trouble shooting procedures of course). You seem to fail to understand how UOA can be used to adjust maintenance intervals and as a tool to help in optimizing performance. Now, you may feel that this is a silly endeavor, fiddling in the margins, poor ROI, whatever. And that's a valid opinion but a far cry from proclaiming that UOAs are useless or invalid.

And it gets really silly when you question the credentials/credibility/integrity of someone who, by all direct accounts, is an extremely knowledgeable, recognized expert in his field. Read what others have posted in this thread - he has helped people discover and solve problems. Sits on ASTM panels, works for oil companies, racing teams, STLE, etc. Or is all that a hoax to trick people into paying him $50 for made up nonsense advice?

jeff

 

[QuadDriver]

Remember when I said to bring your A-game?

But first,

Are you aware, that in the US, 16% of new car sales are leases? typically a 3 year cap and 36K miles.

Are you aware, that in the US, 20% of new car sales are fleet sales, typically for 2 year service life and a 36K mile cap.

Are you aware, that in the US, the remaining 64% of new sales are held for an average of 4.5 years and appx 41K miles?

Assuming a 12M yearly market (not a bad estimate for a 5 year average) we can assume that 68% of the new cars sold each year go to an owner with no desire for longevity. the other 32% is up for grabs, and is tempered by the fact that vehicles last on average 12 years and 128K miles.

Temper this by the fact that over half the vehicles are trucks/suvs and the long life (% on the road after years ) are almost exclusively privately owned pickup trucks in non-commercial duty, we find rather easily that regardless of the previous posts, there is no economic basis for any UOA programme. I think my exact words were 'waste of money'

the red herrings of commercial trucking fleets (almost none participate population wise, but why let facts get in the way) and marine vessels whose service life is measured in DECADES, or aircraft, whose service life is also measured in decades, along with mandatory yearly engine replacements has no bearing on this.

All I have heard thus far is:

Quote:
UOA will also provide information about the service life of the air filter, useful for determining a useful and economical maintenance interval


(I guess simply looking at it or waiting for the book/dash gizmo to tell you so is too difficult?)

and

Quote:
This can help fine tune product selection, maintenance intervals, and point to emerging problems


product selection? You mean you buy engine hardware or change cam grinds based on UOA? oh wait, you must mean, differnt oils. If there is a waste of time I have ever seen. the most generic walmart brand that meets your spec will get you long past the vehicle longevity average and long past the point you grow tired with the car yet....

diverging...the COO of pennzoil used to live next door to me before the company joined with QS and before the eventual offshore sale of course, and he told me QS-Penn was devoting its product line to car appearance/care items as general interest in the actual workings of cars had dropped off. This oddly coincided with the demise of readily available speed shops and aftermarket parts outlets leaving essentially 2 US players. coincidence? he felt that a colorful bottle and a snazzy label meant more to the consumer. apparently he was right.

returning, maint schedule? you mean the one in the book is no good? we have some evidence that the current one in the book wont get to the average longevity...oh wait, the one in the book IS getting to the average longevity and is exceeding the time period the average person reading this even LIKES his car. By a factor of *3*.

Emerging problems? Oh, you mean like the controlled test I proposed, one that would document any and all emerging problems but was rejected?

But this statement elicits a response:

Quote:
You incorrectly assume that any "noted problem" would manifest in such a way as to get the attention of the operator. This is not necessarily true, as modern ECUs are quite capable of adjusting for many things that can mask issues.


Was I not clear that we are talking about problems that would affect the engine oil? Or are we still holding onto the belief that timely UOAs take seconds off the ET and make it stick better in turns.

Pray tell, exactly what problems with the motor oil are the modern PCMs (ECU?) adjusting for? And this segues perfectly to

Quote:
This is so demonstrably false it brings into further question everything you say. This site alone is full of posted UOAs of cars with fuel dilution issues that do not throw CELs or otherwise exhibit undesirable behavoir. My car is one of them. You may remember this whole set of topics about fuel diluting Audis


At this pont it is not uncalled for to ask if you are aware of or understand the emission and drivability strategys of the modern PCM? I did not frivolously choose the dates I did. Since the 1990 carbed car, can in fact have a stuck choke that will twart the mixture control solenoids mebbe you can take a few minutes to explain how an OBD1 car or OBD2 car (96+) can effect a fuel diluted crankcase without setting MIL? (CEL and like terminology left with the carb....)

As you must know (seeing as you have judged my output on it) the closed loop operation has no ability to dilute the oil. Its a physical impossibility - on a normal motor. If you dispute this then you dont need to be posting about automobiles - seriously.

On OBD1 if some failure made it overly rich (failed injector pintle seat) then the single O2s will detect this. The driver will detect this via vastly reduced mileage. The MIL may light if the OS2 crosscounts are not high enuf. At any rate, no UOA is needed or desired.

On OBD2 the upstream and downstream O2S will detect this and set MIL, along with the loss of mileage.

And neither situation precludes the obvious loss of drivability if some part of the hardware breaks, MAF, MAP, TPS all will be detected and set a code.

So LOGICALLY we would need to look for a valid (non-MIL setting) situation where the mixture will be ignored. non-closed loop. a certain amount of of time at a %age of WOT, or forever at WOT. Well that fits, and the blowby gasses produced on ANY engine runing WOT would appear as fuel dilution. the presence of hydrocarbons are detected. Not the type. and surely you point me to a thread about a performance audi model being driven spiritedly. will wonders never cease.

(I of course am not forgetting CFI GM models with plastic fuel lines inside the intake valley but that problem manifests itself quite differently and no one would mistake it for anything else)

So fundamental misunderstanding eh? As 'Inigo' once said "that word you keep using, I no think it means what you think it means". It is clear I have demonstrated my side of the issue and yet remain unrebutted.

Oh and the quip about racing teams? You mean the ones that tear the motor apart after every race? Or you mean the guys like Terry that trailer a private race car they call a 'team' around to informal race after race? You may clear that up. And I am aware where and what Terry drives, one of his competetors is considering one of my motors for the 2011 season and I guarantee you he will never analyze the oil. Be careful name/event dropping?

an d who said I was an ace mechanic? All you can tell about what I have posted is that I seem to graps rather well what is under the hood. Attacking someones credentials? why should I? his are nearly the same as mine, although I do admit I beleive I hold one more degree than he does. AS for the other stuff, is reading a persons website and seeing 'member' somehow awe inspiring? Ill level with you, I discontinued paying my dues for the SAE, ASE, IEEE, ACM and NRA long before any of them had a website where you can re-up or join in the first place, no questions asked, using a credit card or paypal. I dont need to impress people by insinuating I do something I dont.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
Are you aware, that in the US, 16% of new car sales are leases?... we find rather easily that regardless of the previous posts, there is no economic basis for any UOA programme. I think my exact words were 'waste of money'

And how does any of that apply to what we're discussing? Of course you wouldn't suggest to someone who only plans on keeping their car for a few years to do any sort of extensive maintenance.

UOAs and the like best suited for people interested in keeping their car in good shape over a long period of time, not those various short-duty users you're describing.

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
the red herrings of commercial trucking fleets (almost none participate population wise, but why let facts get in the way) and marine vessels whose service life is measured in DECADES, or aircraft, whose service life is also measured in decades, along with mandatory yearly engine replacements has no bearing on this.

Not a red herring. The use of it in those industries is proof, if you're willing to accept it, that the UOA tool can be used to assist operators in determining intervals, predicting problems, product selection etc. You may question how cost effective a solution it is for a private auto owner, but that's a separate issue. BTW ships don't have yearly engine replacements, at least not the ones I work on. UOA is part of condition based maintenance, the very purpose of which is to stretch out useful service life as much as possible while performing maintenance in a cost effective manner.

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
All I have heard thus far is:...

Then you're not really listening. Other people right here in the thread have talked about ways UOAs have helped them.



Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
At this pont it is not uncalled for to ask if you are aware of or understand the emission and drivability strategys of the modern PCM?...

So fundamental misunderstanding eh? As 'Inigo' once said "that word you keep using, I no think it means what you think it means". It is clear I have demonstrated my side of the issue and yet remain unrebutted.

Nice write up, unfortunately it seems to ignore empirical reality. Review the UOAs on this site and you'll find plenty of results showing fuel dilution in cars that do not exhibit symptoms. Start with mine and review that thread about the Audis. You may fall back on the idealized operation of the PCM to try to explain it away, but the data is there.

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
an d who said I was an ace mechanic?

You did, a couple posts earlier:
Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
not everyone can be an ace mechanic. that is a given. Those people should therefore pay ace mechanics. Ace mechanics are not mysterious. We do not live in a vacuum.


I return to my original points - UOA is probably unnecessary for most people, but it's a fun part of the hobby if you choose and can provide interesting and actionable information - there's plenty of proof of that if you're willing to accept it. You may quibble with how much of an improvement over baseline (say just following the owner's manual) you can expect, or whether it's cost effective, but value judgments are an individual thing.

jeff

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
Remember when I said to bring your A-game?

But first,

Are you aware, that in the US, 16% of new car sales are leases? typically a 3 year cap and 36K miles.

Are you aware, that in the US, 20% of new car sales are fleet sales, typically for 2 year service life and a 36K mile cap.

Are you aware, that in the US, the remaining 64% of new sales are held for an average of 4.5 years and appx 41K miles?

Assuming a 12M yearly market (not a bad estimate for a 5 year average) we can assume that 68% of the new cars sold each year go to an owner with no desire for longevity. the other 32% is up for grabs, and is tempered by the fact that vehicles last on average 12 years and 128K miles.

Temper this by the fact that over half the vehicles are trucks/suvs and the long life (% on the road after years ) are almost exclusively privately owned pickup trucks in non-commercial duty, we find rather easily that regardless of the previous posts, there is no economic basis for any UOA programme. I think my exact words were 'waste of money'

the red herrings of commercial trucking fleets (almost none participate population wise, but why let facts get in the way) and marine vessels whose service life is measured in DECADES, or aircraft, whose service life is also measured in decades, along with mandatory yearly engine replacements has no bearing on this.

All I have heard thus far is:

Quote:
UOA will also provide information about the service life of the air filter, useful for determining a useful and economical maintenance interval


(I guess simply looking at it or waiting for the book/dash gizmo to tell you so is too difficult?)

and

Quote:
This can help fine tune product selection, maintenance intervals, and point to emerging problems


product selection? You mean you buy engine hardware or change cam grinds based on UOA? oh wait, you must mean, differnt oils. If there is a waste of time I have ever seen. the most generic walmart brand that meets your spec will get you long past the vehicle longevity average and long past the point you grow tired with the car yet....

diverging...the COO of pennzoil used to live next door to me before the company joined with QS and before the eventual offshore sale of course, and he told me QS-Penn was devoting its product line to car appearance/care items as general interest in the actual workings of cars had dropped off. This oddly coincided with the demise of readily available speed shops and aftermarket parts outlets leaving essentially 2 US players. coincidence? he felt that a colorful bottle and a snazzy label meant more to the consumer. apparently he was right.

returning, maint schedule? you mean the one in the book is no good? we have some evidence that the current one in the book wont get to the average longevity...oh wait, the one in the book IS getting to the average longevity and is exceeding the time period the average person reading this even LIKES his car. By a factor of *3*.

Emerging problems? Oh, you mean like the controlled test I proposed, one that would document any and all emerging problems but was rejected?

But this statement elicits a response:

Quote:
You incorrectly assume that any "noted problem" would manifest in such a way as to get the attention of the operator. This is not necessarily true, as modern ECUs are quite capable of adjusting for many things that can mask issues.


Was I not clear that we are talking about problems that would affect the engine oil? Or are we still holding onto the belief that timely UOAs take seconds off the ET and make it stick better in turns.

Pray tell, exactly what problems with the motor oil are the modern PCMs (ECU?) adjusting for? And this segues perfectly to

Quote:
This is so demonstrably false it brings into further question everything you say. This site alone is full of posted UOAs of cars with fuel dilution issues that do not throw CELs or otherwise exhibit undesirable behavoir. My car is one of them. You may remember this whole set of topics about fuel diluting Audis


At this pont it is not uncalled for to ask if you are aware of or understand the emission and drivability strategys of the modern PCM? I did not frivolously choose the dates I did. Since the 1990 carbed car, can in fact have a stuck choke that will twart the mixture control solenoids mebbe you can take a few minutes to explain how an OBD1 car or OBD2 car (96+) can effect a fuel diluted crankcase without setting MIL? (CEL and like terminology left with the carb....)

As you must know (seeing as you have judged my output on it) the closed loop operation has no ability to dilute the oil. Its a physical impossibility - on a normal motor. If you dispute this then you dont need to be posting about automobiles - seriously.

On OBD1 if some failure made it overly rich (failed injector pintle seat) then the single O2s will detect this. The driver will detect this via vastly reduced mileage. The MIL may light if the OS2 crosscounts are not high enuf. At any rate, no UOA is needed or desired.

On OBD2 the upstream and downstream O2S will detect this and set MIL, along with the loss of mileage.

And neither situation precludes the obvious loss of drivability if some part of the hardware breaks, MAF, MAP, TPS all will be detected and set a code.

So LOGICALLY we would need to look for a valid (non-MIL setting) situation where the mixture will be ignored. non-closed loop. a certain amount of of time at a %age of WOT, or forever at WOT. Well that fits, and the blowby gasses produced on ANY engine runing WOT would appear as fuel dilution. the presence of hydrocarbons are detected. Not the type. and surely you point me to a thread about a performance audi model being driven spiritedly. will wonders never cease.

(I of course am not forgetting CFI GM models with plastic fuel lines inside the intake valley but that problem manifests itself quite differently and no one would mistake it for anything else)

So fundamental misunderstanding eh? As 'Inigo' once said "that word you keep using, I no think it means what you think it means". It is clear I have demonstrated my side of the issue and yet remain unrebutted.

Oh and the quip about racing teams? You mean the ones that tear the motor apart after every race? Or you mean the guys like Terry that trailer a private race car they call a 'team' around to informal race after race? You may clear that up. And I am aware where and what Terry drives, one of his competetors is considering one of my motors for the 2011 season and I guarantee you he will never analyze the oil. Be careful name/event dropping?

an d who said I was an ace mechanic? All you can tell about what I have posted is that I seem to graps rather well what is under the hood. Attacking someones credentials? why should I? his are nearly the same as mine, although I do admit I beleive I hold one more degree than he does. AS for the other stuff, is reading a persons website and seeing 'member' somehow awe inspiring? Ill level with you, I discontinued paying my dues for the SAE, ASE, IEEE, ACM and NRA long before any of them had a website where you can re-up or join in the first place, no questions asked, using a credit card or paypal. I dont need to impress people by insinuating I do something I dont.


Oh, oh, do me!

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
My lawyer and accountant are 1st class people but I avoid them like the plague.

I don't see the need to over pay for an opinion. Post your UOA here and at Noria and enjoy equivalent free opinions.



Do you do that with your legal and accounting issues?

 

[unDummy]

I don't have any legal or accounting issues. I also don't have any oil related issues. Learn to do your own R&D.

 

[Shuttler]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
Sorry, I have seen the Dyson UOAs and I wasn't impressed.

It's like seeing a baseline blood analysis without a doctor. Or an X-Ray. As they say in certain circles: 'Depends on who is reading'