Carlostrece
$100 Site Donor 2025
Can I know oil condition from a UOA if I didn't do a UOA earlier?
i.e. - Is a VOA a neccesity before beginning to do UOA?
i.e. - Is a VOA a neccesity before beginning to do UOA?
Is a VOA a necessity before doing UOA?
- Thread starter Carlostrece
- Start date
MolaKule
Staff member
You need a VOA base line to determine the general addpack signature and starting viscosity for comparison when the UOA results are returned.
In my opinion, yes.
Last edited:
I'm a total noob, but I've learned that different labs may use different test methods, e.g. ICP vs RDE for elemental analysis, so the results may be different from one lab to another. Generally speaking, pick a lab and stick with them so you're comparing apples-to-apples.
dnewton3
Staff member
A VOA really isn't necessary if you're simply wanting to do UOAs as a toy; not really using the UOA for it's full purpose.
But if you want to track contamination and degradation, the VOA is paramount to knowing a baseline. It's especially important to know Si, oxidation, etc if you're going to use the UOA in an effort to stretch the OCIs.
But if you want to track contamination and degradation, the VOA is paramount to knowing a baseline. It's especially important to know Si, oxidation, etc if you're going to use the UOA in an effort to stretch the OCIs.
In this thread, VOAs of HPL's PPPCMO shows aluminum at 9-14ppm from two different labs. Without this knowledge and performing a UOA, you might think there's some wearing of aluminum parts going on. Having the baseline, you can start by subtracting the values from the VOA from the values in the UOA. Those would be the general numbers to track on subsequent UOAs for trend analysis.
There will likely be variations from samples and labs. Don't take the VOA as gospel, nor each UOA, but a guideline.
Carlostrece
$100 Site Donor 2025
OK. A VOA is necessary. Got it. Thanks
dnewton3
Staff member
Also, look over the VOA and make sure things make sense ...
See this thread of mine with obvious erroneous values in the first report (compare first post info to the 13th post update).
The reality is that UOAs and VOAs are subject to error, so knowing the correct values is of the utmost importance.
See this thread of mine with obvious erroneous values in the first report (compare first post info to the 13th post update).
The reality is that UOAs and VOAs are subject to error, so knowing the correct values is of the utmost importance.
See attached for the base PCEO in 5w-30
NOTE >>> This VOA was in error in the barium and titanium. See post #13 below for "updated" analysis of this sample.
NOTE >>> This VOA was in error in the barium and titanium. See post #13 below for "updated" analysis of this sample.
I'm new to this forum (not the world) and testing of motor oils. Members here have caught errors on two of my UOA results, which the lab then corrected. Post the VOA and UOAs you receive and you'll get experienced eyes looking them over, catching potential anomalies.
Carlostrece
$100 Site Donor 2025
OK. Thanks.
You've made 407 posts. That's not new, but I do see you joined 2½ months ago in May, which is somewhat recent, but not new. You clearly know things and have good info to share. Thank you.
I would say no because as Blackstone says, there isn't a statistically relevant difference in wear between brands of oil. Besides there are different tests for TBN depending on whether the oil is virgin or used so the numbers don't correlate.
I would opine that wear rates are largely engine specific rather than oil specific.
Similar threads
