GC + A-RX through CDN winter

[rob-the-oil-nut]

For quite some time I have been planning to make a Guinea Pig of myself and be the first to try Auto-RX through a Canadian winter.
Auto-RX comes out thick and a tad chunky especially if the bottle doesn't sit in hot water for a while before adding. Frank said it does not affect the pour point of the host oil. I was skeptical: Why would he have occasion to test this assertion at colder than -25? Or test this assertion with any 0W30, let alone GC?
The short answer is, pour point after about 5 months and 4900 KM (3000 to 3100 miles) was -36 C.
Another testiment to Frank and Auto-RX!

The long answer lies in this posting, a tale of a FOUR-samples for UOA's, to 2 different labs, with Terry Dyson's interpretation.
Yes, this could be a long one, but actually that's what I hope. This is for the benefit of those wondering the difference between WearCheck Canada and Toromont.

The car is a '96 Pontiac but the engine is from an "'01 or '02 Buick LeSabre...installed with under 20,000 km on it, that was about 5,000 km ago" I was told by the dealership when I was about to buy it late in August of '03. Sorry, Patman and all others, that means I can't quite put all the info into the subject line that I would like.
When I had my by-pass filter installed in April, the oil was drained, and I specified and double-checked that neither the first nor last litre be collected, and the remainder was collected. Being a horrible procrastinator (SORRY) that jug sat about 2 months. I then poured it into 2 sample bottles; one went to Toromont and one went to WearCheck.
The other 2 samples sent in to each of these will be covered seperately.
Here are the results from the samples from that jug. The WearCheck one was interpreted by Terry Dyson...

Sample WearCheck # 194 (same as sample 862 from Toromont)
German Castrol 0W30 with Auto-RX. UOA done after 4900 KM through a Winnipeg Winter
(odometer 113391 Nov 20 '03 and 120290 on drain date of April 12 '04)
Typical | Base | Sample # 194
Iron (Fe) 150 400 22
Chromium (Cr) 20 40 2.4
Nickel (Ni) 5 10 0
Titanium -- -- 0.4
Silver 2 5 0
Aluminum 40 90 1.5
Lead (Pb) 50 150 7.6
Copper (Cu) 155 250 69
Tin (Sn) 10 25 0.5
Silicon (Si) 30 75 29

Sodium (Na) 7.9
Potassium (K) 0.0
Boron (B) 3.1
Barium (Ba) 0.2
Molybdenum (Mo) 16
Magnesium (Mg) 82
Calcium (Ca) 1555
Phosphorus (P) 538
Zinc (Zn) 672
Sulfur (S) 1818
Manganese (Mn) 62
Vanadium (V) 0.0
Oxidation(PA) 57
Nitratrion(PA) 37
Sulfation(PA) 64
Kv@100°C 11.5
Pour Point -36 C
White Metal VLITE
Babbitt NONE
Precipitate NONE
Silt NONE
Debris NONE
Dirt NONE
Appearance NORML
Odor NORML
H2O(Emul) NEG
H2O(Free) NEG
Kv@100°C 11.5
Pour Pt.= -36 C
WearCheck comments: Resample at the next service interval to monitor. All component wear rates are normal. There is no indication of any contamination in the component. The condition of the oil is acceptable for the time in service.

Sample # 862 from Toromont:
Iron: 22
Chrome: 2
Moly: 16
Aluminum: 1
*Copper: 69
Lead: 8
Tin (SN): 1
Boron: (Blank)
Silicon: 28
Sodium: 12
Zinc: 622
Potassium: 2
Nickel: 0
Silver: 0
TBN: 5.5
Visc cSt: 10.8
Negative for Anti-freeze, fuel dilution, or water.

More soon
I hope this helps the BITOG community
Rob The Oil Nut

[ July 02, 2004, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: rob-the-oil-nut ]

 

[rob-the-oil-nut]

Yuk, those efforts I made at formatting for easy reading were rather fruitless. Shucks

Thanks / sorry
Rob

 

[Jay]

Nice to see the two labs agreed so closely on the wear metals.

 

[rob-the-oil-nut]

I started off with Toromont maybe 2.5 years ago, but they aren't as thorough as WearCheck. Then again, WearCheck does twice the testing for twice the price. I for one wanted to know how one fared against the other. Toromont issued a "caution" for copper being 69, WearCheck did not.
WearCheck charged me a whopping $25 to do pour point testing. Given the assertion that below -30 or so, their pour point tests are less than fully certian, my next sample will be slated for December and I'll put it out overnight when it's -35 or so and do my own test, before sending it in to the lab.

For trending purposes, samples were taken about 6 weeks prior to the above drain, and again one went to Toromont and one to WearCheck...should that be in this thread, or under a new topic??
Let me know, please, admins & moderators...more coming soon!
Rob The Oil Nut

 

[Quattro Pete]

Those "Typical" and "Base" numbers are huge in comparison to your sample. What do they represent? The typical sample from an engine like that? Wow!

As far as formatting, you need to use the "CODE" function so that the character spacing is fixed.

 

[rob-the-oil-nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quattro Pete:
Those "Typical" and "Base" numbers are huge in comparison to your sample. What do they represent? The typical sample from an engine like that? Wow!
I have no idea. Perhaps I'll ask WearCheck, or Patman / Kule / Terry D

As far as formatting, you need to use the "CODE" function so that the character spacing is fixed.

---

Last few times I tried I got dazed and confused

 

[Steel Blue Wind Rider]

Sorry, but how does one use the "Code Function" if one is not familiar? Thank you.

 

[labman]

Scroll down in the post a reply box to the ''What is UBB code'' link. The next page gives instructions on several options. I have had mixed luck using ''Code''. You may want to use the preview post link until you have it right.

 

[rob-the-oil-nut]

Steel Blue Wind Rider is in the same boat as me, it seems

I, too, have had mixed (actually just plain poor) luck with "Code" and Preview Post shows the formatting just dandy for me.
I'm quite sure there are many other posts on "Code" and how to use it, and suggest we deal with UOA-related stuff before our friendly, helpful moderators advise us we are

Hahahaha
Where is the copper most likely from? Is 69 OK or cautionary? Both labs are good; I for one am not too keen on second-guessing someone that has been doing this for even one year (given the training that I'm sure is involved). I have noticed in the past that Toromont, dealing with mainly Diesels, treats samples as though they were from long-haul trucks. If semi's have less copper in them, then 69 would warrant a caution. It may well be that their systems are set up for heavy trucks, and they are only gonna do so much for my $15 (each) job. I had some really expensive, whiz-bang tests done at another place, but they tended to do UOA's for a few weeks and then something else with the same equipment, and I sensed the change-over was a real pain. I just know I have no Chem degree, nor will I fly to a tribology course that's only a few grand, just to be where the techies were at 18 years ago in terms of knowlege. So, I am not too keen on second-guessing them. The sheet I got once that seemed to think my UOA was on a Hyundai 1.6 DOHC (it was) and then went on to suggest it was probably a Diesel, well I just shrugged and knew there was a reason. See, I took this up with a tribologist (NOT widely known on this forum) that explained how a UOA lab works, and then I had a less aggressive or demanding tone toward the pro's working on samples like mine.
Regards
Rob

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Those "Typical" and "Base" numbers are huge in comparison to your sample. What do they represent? The typical sample from an engine like that? Wow!

---

I too wondered if this represented a "typical" Canadian wear metal number due to "super-severe" duty.