You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For all you who are HIGH on TGMO!
- Thread starter ccl088
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
[
How much copper is your oil exposed to in relation to possible oil cooler plumbing and so on.
5ppm is nothing if there's no copper in the path of the oil.
40ppm could be nothing too if there's 5 feet of copper plumbing running to an oil cooler or perhaps a twin by-pass oil filter set up.
Knowing the intricacies of the engine in question will go a long way in determining what metals seem high of not.
If my old sohc mod motor had 5ppn copper if be scratching my head and would be very concerned considering the bearings are copper-free and no oil cooler.
Just saying
Isn't that the purpose of Blackstone's universal averages?
[
How much copper is your oil exposed to in relation to possible oil cooler plumbing and so on.
5ppm is nothing if there's no copper in the path of the oil.
40ppm could be nothing too if there's 5 feet of copper plumbing running to an oil cooler or perhaps a twin by-pass oil filter set up.
Knowing the intricacies of the engine in question will go a long way in determining what metals seem high of not.
If my old sohc mod motor had 5ppn copper if be scratching my head and would be very concerned considering the bearings are copper-free and no oil cooler.
Just saying
Isn't that the purpose of Blackstone's universal averages?
Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Clevy said:[
How much copper is your oil exposed to in relation to possible oil cooler plumbing and so on.
5ppm is nothing if there's no copper in the path of the oil.
40ppm could be nothing too if there's 5 feet of copper plumbing running to an oil cooler or perhaps a twin by-pass oil filter set up.
Knowing the intricacies of the engine in question will go a long way in determining what metals seem high of not.
If my old sohc mod motor had 5ppn copper if be scratching my head and would be very concerned considering the bearings are copper-free and no oil cooler.
Just saying
Isn't that the purpose of Blackstone's universal averages?
BINGO!
Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Isn't that the purpose of Blackstone's universal averages?
To a point, but how accurate are their delineations between different submodels and engines? In any case, comparing single digit PPM to single digit PPM averages with an unknown error bar in a single, one off UOA is a mathematical Charlie Foxtrot. Nothing of any value whatsoever can be determined from this. Without TBN (or other markers of similar use), it's exceedingly difficult to decide whether or not the lubricant should be condemned (unlikely given its low mileage).
So, we're trying to use a UOA for a purpose for which it isn't designed, and worse, doing so on a single UOA. And for the real purpose of a UOA, to determine the suitability of the oil for continued service, none of the usual tests (TBN, TAN, oxidation, nitration) have been conducted. So, what's the point?
Isn't that the purpose of Blackstone's universal averages?
To a point, but how accurate are their delineations between different submodels and engines? In any case, comparing single digit PPM to single digit PPM averages with an unknown error bar in a single, one off UOA is a mathematical Charlie Foxtrot. Nothing of any value whatsoever can be determined from this. Without TBN (or other markers of similar use), it's exceedingly difficult to decide whether or not the lubricant should be condemned (unlikely given its low mileage).
So, we're trying to use a UOA for a purpose for which it isn't designed, and worse, doing so on a single UOA. And for the real purpose of a UOA, to determine the suitability of the oil for continued service, none of the usual tests (TBN, TAN, oxidation, nitration) have been conducted. So, what's the point?
The blackstone universal averages are a guide but not a definite thing to follow. Like I said, those universal averages include engines with 250k, 100k, 75k, ect... A health engine with 100K should produce much lower wear metals than an engine with 20K, because the engine with 20K is still breaking in and shedding excess wear metals. There is also an thing called a particle streak, which produces excess wear metals.
To condemn a lube because an engine STILL breaking in produced numbers higher that the universal averages is silly and not a proper comparison because of only ONE uoa. You need MORE data, more UOA to show that this lube is the issue.
Which part of this do you not understand?
To condemn a lube because an engine STILL breaking in produced numbers higher that the universal averages is silly and not a proper comparison because of only ONE uoa. You need MORE data, more UOA to show that this lube is the issue.
Which part of this do you not understand?
The part where this oil may not even be TGMO. That was part of the reason for the analysis. Just in case, according to you and others, the data IS correct, I will just make a personal choice and avoid TGMO in the future. Do you think I can do that maybe? Any part of this YOU don't understand?
Originally Posted By: ccl088
The part where this oil may not even be TGMO. That was part of the reason for the analysis.
So, what was your conclusion? And what's the reason for avoiding TGMO in the future? It obviously isn't the UOA, since a UOA is to determine continued suitability of a lube in service via various condemnation points, not to determine any differences between approved lubes over short, under 3000 mile OCIs. Right?
This is a rehash of the M1 high iron thing, except with a sample size of one.
The part where this oil may not even be TGMO. That was part of the reason for the analysis.
So, what was your conclusion? And what's the reason for avoiding TGMO in the future? It obviously isn't the UOA, since a UOA is to determine continued suitability of a lube in service via various condemnation points, not to determine any differences between approved lubes over short, under 3000 mile OCIs. Right?
This is a rehash of the M1 high iron thing, except with a sample size of one.
Originally Posted By: ccl088
The part where this oil may not even be TGMO. That was part of the reason for the analysis. Just in case, according to you and others, the data IS correct, I will just make a personal choice and avoid TGMO in the future. Do you think I can do that maybe? Any part of this YOU don't understand?
So you don't understand the part where you're not sure if this is TGMO? Well atleast we know that now.
If you aren't even sure it's TGMO why even start a thread bashing it? You can chose whatever oil you want but it's best to do so with an educated and well informed decision, which you don't have enough data to prove anything. Have you read the UOA article on the BITOG homepage? If not, you should read through it.
The part where this oil may not even be TGMO. That was part of the reason for the analysis. Just in case, according to you and others, the data IS correct, I will just make a personal choice and avoid TGMO in the future. Do you think I can do that maybe? Any part of this YOU don't understand?
So you don't understand the part where you're not sure if this is TGMO? Well atleast we know that now.
If you aren't even sure it's TGMO why even start a thread bashing it? You can chose whatever oil you want but it's best to do so with an educated and well informed decision, which you don't have enough data to prove anything. Have you read the UOA article on the BITOG homepage? If not, you should read through it.
ccl088,
I see nothing of concern in your analysis. Use it as a frame of reference or "starting point". As others have suggested, there are two many "ifs" to draw any real conclusions, especially alarming ones. I see nothing that would cause me any concern-yet.
As some others have suggested, this is a young engine that potentially has had only two previous oil changes in it's short life. We could simply be seeing residuals left over from previous fills from an engine breaking in. Re sample in 5k and see how the numbers change and then you will have some kind of gauge to go by. WAY too little info to condemn the engine or the oil.
I see nothing of concern in your analysis. Use it as a frame of reference or "starting point". As others have suggested, there are two many "ifs" to draw any real conclusions, especially alarming ones. I see nothing that would cause me any concern-yet.
As some others have suggested, this is a young engine that potentially has had only two previous oil changes in it's short life. We could simply be seeing residuals left over from previous fills from an engine breaking in. Re sample in 5k and see how the numbers change and then you will have some kind of gauge to go by. WAY too little info to condemn the engine or the oil.
Last edited:
While I think it's premature to call this a "bad" TGMO report based on the wear metals, it does give a small amount of empirical weight to a question I've had about TGMO for some time, that's shear stability.
We've seen quite a few UOAs with TGMO indicating it's pretty shear stable, but the vast majority are at 5,000+ miles. It's well known that many oils shear in the first 1,000 miles, then proceed to get thicker via oxidation and other mechanisms. This UOA seems to indicate that's occurring with TGMO. Since the high VI is the main reason many use this oil, it would be very interesting to get a KV40 measurement in the UOAs. I'm aware of only one such UOA on TGMO from a Russian member. In that UOA it came back with (from memory) ~7.8 cSt KV100 and VI of 180.
We've seen quite a few UOAs with TGMO indicating it's pretty shear stable, but the vast majority are at 5,000+ miles. It's well known that many oils shear in the first 1,000 miles, then proceed to get thicker via oxidation and other mechanisms. This UOA seems to indicate that's occurring with TGMO. Since the high VI is the main reason many use this oil, it would be very interesting to get a KV40 measurement in the UOAs. I'm aware of only one such UOA on TGMO from a Russian member. In that UOA it came back with (from memory) ~7.8 cSt KV100 and VI of 180.
when you look at the UOAs of the Caterham blends folks use, some have a higher than universal average for copper. Just an observation
Please let the record show that on this day the new BITOG truth was born. Similar to "Mobil 1 causes Iron wear" we now have "TGMO causes high Copper wear".
May the lord have mercy on our souls, Amen.
Now we can take bets on what wear metal will show up in CATERHAM Blend v2.0 (TM, patent pending) which will consist of 2 parts 0w-16, 1 part 0w-20 MGMO, 1 part 0w-40 Belgium Castrol, 5 oz MMO and a half can of MoS2.
(Just joking, don't explode!)
May the lord have mercy on our souls, Amen.
Now we can take bets on what wear metal will show up in CATERHAM Blend v2.0 (TM, patent pending) which will consist of 2 parts 0w-16, 1 part 0w-20 MGMO, 1 part 0w-40 Belgium Castrol, 5 oz MMO and a half can of MoS2.
(Just joking, don't explode!)
Originally Posted By: nepadriver
Please let the record show that on this day the new BITOG truth was born. Similar to "Mobil 1 causes Iron wear" we now have "TGMO causes high Copper wear".
May the lord have mercy on our souls, Amen.
Now we can take bets on what wear metal will show up in CATERHAM Blend v2.0 (TM, patent pending) which will consist of 2 parts 0w-16, 1 part 0w-20 MGMO, 1 part 0w-40 Belgium Castrol, 5 oz MMO and a half can of MoS2.
(Just joking, don't explode!)
Amen
Please let the record show that on this day the new BITOG truth was born. Similar to "Mobil 1 causes Iron wear" we now have "TGMO causes high Copper wear".
May the lord have mercy on our souls, Amen.
Now we can take bets on what wear metal will show up in CATERHAM Blend v2.0 (TM, patent pending) which will consist of 2 parts 0w-16, 1 part 0w-20 MGMO, 1 part 0w-40 Belgium Castrol, 5 oz MMO and a half can of MoS2.
(Just joking, don't explode!)
Amen
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 2K