How Valid UOA Results, Especially If Dirty Engine?

[Fordiesel69]

Quote:

---

I have to wonder if conventional oil posts good wear numbers because the wear metals are partially trapped in sludge and varnish? Synthetics leave engine internals clean and therefore nearly all contaminates drain out?

Chris

---

Never thought of it that way, but you may have a good point. I also heard that certain synthetics clean better than some conventional's. Some say it is a myth, but this may be the reason why you get more insoulubles on the first few syn OCI's.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I offer 30 years of data and experience with BOTH aspects of the measure and apply that to YOUR result. I immediately know what is residual, what is wear, what is hidden because I have real data to compare to. Data that self corrects the variablilty 427 sees and makes him discount the lab or their accuracy and repeatability. Its why I don't care what lab you get your data from because if I interpret it and I see a flaw in the results I will be on the lab like fly on stank.

---

Terry, I hope you understand I was speaking from a layman's perspective when viewing used oil analysis. Most here understand that your proprietary process can determine things most amateurs will never see and/or understand.

 

[Terry]

427, thats exactly how I took it and I KNOW that the engineering types here ( like you ) are frustrated by the seeming lack of repeatability from the various labs. Heck I see pitiful repeatability from supposed ISO 9000 whatever, round robin verified/cross checked labs all the time. If you don't know what you are supposed to see in a automotive oil analysis you can't be sure the results are accurate.

Having said all that a good lab that gets it close most of the time will still give you a good insight into the condition of the unit and lube, if trended.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Having said all that a good lab that gets it close most of the time will still give you a good insight into the condition of the unit and lube, if trended.

---

Yes...I wholeheartedly agree. I just think us amateurs need to be careful that we don't conclude that we're doing irrefutable science especially when trending isn't employed.

 

[buster]

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...ge=0#Post786754

Terry do you notice higher Fe readins with Synthetics vs conventional oils? Someone posted this question in the thread above. IMO, it's the type of oil being used. Some are better formulated and don't show higher Fe levels. In fact, is seems only M1 shows higher Fe among all the syn lubes.

 

[Terry]

buster, no.

 

[Terry]

What if this is true ?: M1 is not a "real" synthetic, M1 shows higher fe values in UOA. So conventional oil showed higher fe. hmmmm. Just a proposition not posted as fact.

 

[buster]

Good point, thanks.

 

[TallPaul]

Bottom line is that few of us need to do used oil analysis. We're just in it for the fun of it. Curiosity more than anything else, or to push an OCI. IMO,we all could live on 5000 (conventional or blend) to 7000 (synthetic) OCIs and no used oil analysis for the life of our vehicles (or use the GM Oil Life Monitor).

 

[deven]

Just as important to have an annual pysical after a certain age, the same lies with the engine. Yes its expensive fun, but the key word is FUN! Every oil change, you can tweak here and there and see if you can find that sweet spot for your engine. Its like a big jigsaw puzzle.