how reliable are UOA?

[gregk24]

I was planning on doing a UOA of my current fill, I have done some high rpms on a cold engine on this change (cold as in not to operating temp), and I would like to see the insols with the honda filter I have on. But I just read on here that UOA dont really show true wear, and that the insols are not accurate, is this true? should I just skip out on the UOA?

 

[OneEyeJack]

Try multiple UOA's and watch the patterns. Beyond obvious problems the trends might be of some interest when using these results as a planning tool.

 

[SLCraig]

I for one, wouldn't bother. But I can see why people like to do it.
They're definitely good for helping find stuff like coolant leaks or air filtration issues.

 

[Malo83]

Waste of time and money

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: SLCraig
I for one, wouldn't bother. But I can see why people like to do it.
They're definitely good for helping find stuff like coolant leaks or air filtration issues.


+1

 

[jrustles]

common UOAs only detect particles in sizes that were produced as a result of a particular kind/rate of wear. We have seen engines with major failures like totally galled cams, complete with grit and sparkles in the oil pan, but showed a fine UOA because of this. UOAs are only relative to each other from the same lab with the same calibrations. IIWY, I'd save the $

 

[DragRace]

I've never done any and dont plan to,not worth the time or $$

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: Malo83
Waste of time and money

 

[stephen9666]

I've done two or three in the past on various vehicles, but I probably won't bother doing one again unless I suspect something is going on.

But, OP, I encourage you to give it a shot and see what you think.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
I was planning on doing a UOA of my current fill, I have done some high rpms on a cold engine on this change (cold as in not to operating temp), and I would like to see the insols with the honda filter I have on. But I just read on here that UOA dont really show true wear, and that the insols are not accurate, is this true? should I just skip out on the UOA?


We use them on fleet vehicles. But only for a while when new. They are severely limited and widely misunderstood. Beyond some trending analysis and such I say most of us would never miss them if they were no longer there...

 

[surfstar]

B-I-N-G-O

They're way more for 'fun' vs 'work'.


"Your wear #'s were ___, which compare to averages by ____. Try running to 7,000 miles next time."

I could start a fake lab and make up numbers and the UOA section would never know the difference.

 

[Errtt]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
B-I-N-G-O

They're way more for 'fun' vs 'work'.


"Your wear #'s were ___, which compare to averages by ____. Try running to 7,000 miles next time."

I could start a fake lab and make up numbers and the UOA section would never know the difference.

I may still have some Monopoly bucks to pay for your UOA services, only if you mark out of universal averages with a B-I-N-G-O marker, and make up essential operational comments

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
I was planning on doing a UOA of my current fill, I have done some high rpms on a cold engine on this change (cold as in not to operating temp), and I would like to see the insols with the honda filter I have on. But I just read on here that UOA dont really show true wear, and that the insols are not accurate, is this true? should I just skip out on the UOA?


Check out Dave's article

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/

To be effective, you need to do trending with at least three UOA's and one VOA. UOA's are only as good as the interpretation and trending.

One time snapshots are generally useless.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
I for one, wouldn't bother. But I can see why people like to do it.
They're definitely good for helping find stuff like coolant leaks or air filtration issues.


+1

+2 It may help looking for coolant and fuel but in general is as useful as a suitcase with no handle. Remember BuickGN? Freaking engine in bits and pieces but had a perfect UOA.

I never understood why someone will spend an extra $25 to UOA cheap oils?
Spend the $25 on a better quality synthetic and a better filter.

 

[jimbrewer]

Well, I guess the question is, what do you expect? Do you expect the analysis to warn you of an impending engine failure? Probably not. Do you expect it to give you an idea of what you can expect in terms of oil life? Then that's more realistic. Do you test and change a high dollar boutique oil at 5K intervals so you can oooh and aaah over the results? Well, I guess there are more boring hobbies although I can't think off-hand what they might be.

For example, quite a few of the Ford Ecoboost owners have learned that they should change their oil about every 5K miles. It doesn't seem to matter much whether they use conventional or synthetic, either. That's useful information. Of course, plenty of people change their oil every 5K anyway, and plenty of other people intuitively would adopt a shorter change interval for a twin turbo. Personally I think its worth a few bucks to definitively know rather than to guess. As SRT8 suggests, I don't see much practical point in repeatedly testing once you learn the basic parameters.

 

[Garak]

That pretty much covers it, jimbrewer. Use them as tools as intended, and no problems. Ooohing and aaahing over boutique results after 5000 mile OCIs is a little silly, as you indicate.

There's a reason they're more prevalent in fleet usage. Like was mentioned, a regular driver could get a few data points and have a good idea and stick with it. Fleets are a little different, of course, and they have much more to gain in cost savings from avoiding unnecessary maintenance.