HPL CK-4 10w-30 HDEO VOA

Here is re test the lab sent me last night.

IMG_6366.webp
 
These retest results are concerning and not for this particular one. If someone thinks the test results are not accurate and request a retest, they get a different result sent. How is a person supposed to know when the results are correct ? I’m not talking about this particular sample but any OA. I have seen it happen with various UOA’s also.
 
These retest results are concerning and not for this particular one. If someone thinks the test results are not accurate and request a retest, they get a different result sent. How is a person supposed to know when the results are correct ? I’m not talking about this particular sample but any OA. I have seen it happen with various UOA’s also.

This is something I think about often. I imagine there's been several cases of someone condemning an oil, or even condemning an engine or missing a problem, due to anomalous results. This is where having a valid VOA is crucial to accurate testing. Those of us on BITOG tend to catch such anomalies. The average joe, look at a single UOA out of context, likely wouldn't know any different.
 
I don’t know. Called lab and asked for TBN retest. Beyond that I don’t know what okejoe is talking about. To each their own. We all know HPL oils have a high starting TBN
 
I don’t know. Called lab and asked for TBN retest. Beyond that I don’t know what okejoe is talking about. To each their own. We all know HPL oils have a high starting TBN

I don't think he's questioning the retest. I think he's questioning how much we can trust a UOA to be accurate in the general sense. (at least that's how I took it) Had we not known HPL has a high virgin TBN, we may have accepted the initial result as accurate and wrote the oil off as "weak". (relatively speaking) Thus, how is someone not familiar with oil formulating supposed to know whether a result is questionable or not? We see it fairly often on here. I can think of several just this year so I'm sure it happens quite often among non-BITOGers.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he's questioning the retest. I think he's questioning how much we can trust a UOA to be accurate in the general sense. (at least that's how I took it) Had we not known HPL has a high virgin TBN, we may have accepted the initial result as accurate and wrote the oil off as "weak". (relatively speaking) Thus, how is someone not familiar with oil formulating supposed to know whether a result is questionable or not? We see it fairly often on here. I can think of several just this year so I'm sure it happens quite often among non-BITOGers.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not questioning the validity of the HPL oil at all, but the fact that you can’t trust the results of the OA’s. I see it pretty often on here where people have to call and request a retest of different samples and get replies with different results. Makes me wonder if it’s even justifiable to do an OA.
 
I don't think he's questioning the retest. I think he's questioning how much we can trust a UOA to be accurate in the general sense. (at least that's how I took it) Had we not known HPL has a high virgin TBN, we may have accepted the initial result as accurate and wrote the oil off as "weak". (relatively speaking) Thus, how is someone not familiar with oil formulating supposed to know whether a result is questionable or not? We see it fairly often on here. I can think of several just this year so I'm sure it happens quite often among non-BITOGers.


Thank You for clarification sir. 👍🍻
 
This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not questioning the validity of the HPL oil at all, but the fact that you can’t trust the results of the OA’s. I see it pretty often on here where people have to call and request a retest of different samples and get replies with different results. Makes me wonder if it’s even justifiable to do an OA.


It’s all good ole Joe. I read too deep into the subject. Cheers sir 🍻👍😎

IMG_6370.webp


IMG_6369.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom