Is testing for Fe an indication of engine wear?

[Mark888]

I have noticed that a lot of people seem to make assumptions about how much protection against engine wear an oil provides based on the amount of Fe in an oil analysis.

But what about engines that are aluminum, or have stainless steel or titanium rings, etc? I could see that there may some Fe even in stainless steel, but it would obviously vary depending on the exact makeup of the metal when compared to cast iron engine parts.

Aside from the problem above, I think that some oil manufacturers are probably putting additives in their oil that reduces the amount of Fe that is suspended, or reduces the amount that would show up in oil analysis. In short, some oils are likely being designed to pass an oil analysis test rather than a real-world test (such as an engine tear-down and measuring the engine wear).

 

[bepperb]

With very rare exceptions, aluminum block engines for passenger cars and trucks have cast iron liners. Stainless Steel or titanium rings would be even less likely.

If there is an additive that would make the worn metal get caught in a filter, thereby reducing the amount suspended in the oil that would certainly throw the number off. But if there was such a thing I doubt it would be a secret for very long... ie... all companies would be using it.

Maybe there are members with magnetic oil plugs giving us bogus UOA's...

 

[Jim 5]

Camshafts wear is indicated by iron.

We here on BITOG are a bit nuts and don't represent the demographic for whom oil companies formulate motor oil. The number of people doing UOA's would not even be on their radar screen and that being the case, I doubt they would bother formulating an additive that would conceal wear metals for the purposes of a UOA.

 

[vxcalais]

I dont mean to offend anyone, but isnt ILSAC(Euro spec) meant to be higher, more test, harder to pass than the ACEA S or C rating classes ?

 

[Jetronic]

you mean API S or C I think...

ACEA is also european

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Jim 5
Camshafts wear is indicated by iron.

We here on BITOG are a bit nuts and don't represent the demographic for whom oil companies formulate motor oil. The number of people doing UOA's would not even be on their radar screen and that being the case, I doubt they would bother formulating an additive that would conceal wear metals for the purposes of a UOA.

I think the botique companies like Amsoil and Redline would tailor their oil for testing rather than real-world results (at least Amsoil would for sure).

 

[Ken2]

ILSAC is U.S. based with U.S. & Japanese manufacturers involved.
ACEA is European.
API is U.S. based and used worldwide.
JASO is Japanese based.

Fe (iron) in an oil analysis is a report of the iron that is too small to be trapped in the filter. Over time it indicates the rate of engine wear. Short term it can be misleading if a different brand of oil picks up more residue left in the engine than another brand of oil, or if the oil itself has some iron in it either in one of the components of the oil or from iron piping or storage.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
With very rare exceptions, aluminum block engines for passenger cars and trucks have cast iron liners. Stainless Steel or titanium rings would be even less likely.

If there is an additive that would make the worn metal get caught in a filter, thereby reducing the amount suspended in the oil that would certainly throw the number off. But if there was such a thing I doubt it would be a secret for very long... ie... all companies would be using it.

Maybe there are members with magnetic oil plugs giving us bogus UOA's...

I am going to have to get some clarification on the cast iron liners, because my understanding is that is no longer true on some of the high tech engines.

My point about Fe is that the amounts tested are not the big chunks, but the small particles that might be suspended better by some oils. That may penalize some oils in situations that have nothing to do with the actual amount of engine wear that occurs.

I think the whole connection between Fe in the oil and engine wear is suspect on several different levels.

 

[Greaser]

If you have high Fe numbers and the other elements are raised then there is a problem.If you have just high Fe then there probably is another scenario at play.Mobil 1 for example has shown higher Fe numbers but everything else is all-right.Now we can try to find out whats going on.Either iron is coming from the oil itself,not clinging to the parts while the engine is at rest?But for a oil company to make an additive that hides Fe in UOA's would show up in the test itself as a odd unknown to be found out for sure.

 

[dnewton3]

Wear metal readings are typically kept in check by some services, because you get "average" comparitive results.

For example - an oil sample sent to Blackstone from a Dmax, is typically compared to other Dmax engines, so the relative wear rates are somewhat reasonable. So regardless of what construction type and materials are used, if the analysis service compares your readings to those of similar/same engines, you'll still have a fair understanding of how your specific engine is doing.

Sure, there are some engines with no steel liners; but they do have other treatments that harden them. Untreated AL would not survive the abuse very well at all in a cylinder bore. Typically, you'll see a spray coating, induction hardening, etc. Of note, some motorcycle engines have treated cylinder bores. (Nikasil comes to mind, but it's not limited to this by any means).

Regarding UOAs, there are always the "flyers" that come out of nowhere. They make you question either the validity of the test, or the state of your equipment.

But as long as you compare apples to apples, you get a fair understanding of how the Fe, Al, Cu, etc all are interacting with relativity.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Wear metal readings are typically kept in check by some services, because you get "average" comparitive results.

For example - an oil sample sent to Blackstone from a Dmax, is typically compared to other Dmax engines, so the relative wear rates are somewhat reasonable. So regardless of what construction type and materials are used, if the analysis service compares your readings to those of similar/same engines, you'll still have a fair understanding of how your specific engine is doing.

Sure, there are some engines with no steel liners; but they do have other treatments that harden them. Untreated AL would not survive the abuse very well at all in a cylinder bore. Typically, you'll see a spray coating, induction hardening, etc. Of note, some motorcycle engines have treated cylinder bores. (Nikasil comes to mind, but it's not limited to this by any means).

Regarding UOAs, there are always the "flyers" that come out of nowhere. They make you question either the validity of the test, or the state of your equipment.

But as long as you compare apples to apples, you get a fair understanding of how the Fe, Al, Cu, etc all are interacting with relativity.

Thanks for the info, but what you said convinces me even more that there is no direct correlation between Fe in an oil sample and engine wear. When aluminum blocks are hardened, I don't think Fe is the primary element involved. I have seem many people merely quote the Fe number without regard to any of the other elements that might be the base metals involved (which are typically alloys, even for aluminum).

But even beyond the analysis of the amounts of a trace element in the oil, I just don't see there is a cause and effect between the number of trace elements and engine wear as it relates to a specific oil. Some oils with excellent detergent capabilities may suspend trace elements better than others, and that does not mean those oils cause more engine wear than others.

Don't get me wrong, I think oil testing is great for determining how long an oil will hold up, and when it is best to change it.

For those who don't think that companies like Amsoil use oil tests to their advantage, even when they are misleading, then all I can say is that I strongly disagree.

 

[buster]

Part of the Seq IVA test measure is to monitor Fe wear via oil analysis. fwiw.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: buster
Part of the Seq IVA test measure is to monitor Fe wear via oil analysis. fwiw.

I went to the website below, and part of the test is to measure the wear metals iron (Fe), and copper (Cu) in the oil.

However, they do measure the actual camshaft wear to determine whether an oil passes or fails the test:

"At the end of the test, each of the 12 cam lobes is measured at 7 locations using a surface profilometer, which measures maximum depth of wear. Measurements of wear on all 7 positions of each lobe are added, then all 12 lobe measurements are averaged for the wear result. This result is the primary evaluation for the test."
http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/GasTests/IVAtest/default.htm

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
For those who don't think that companies like Amsoil use oil tests to their advantage, even when they are misleading, then all I can say is that I strongly disagree.


Please ..bring us to your level of enlightenment. What makes you believe this is so?

I'll take the bait since no one else responded ..and you felt need to repeat yourself.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Please ..bring us to your level of enlightenment. What makes you believe this is so?

I'll take the bait since no one else responded ..and you felt need to repeat yourself.

Because I went to the Amsoil website and they have all sorts of graphs that shows that Amsoil tests better than the competition.

Now, maybe Amsoil is better than all those other oils, or maybe Amsoil is a great marketing company and they know how make the tests favor their products. Or maybe (some speculation here) they tailor their oils so that they "test" well even if the test is not really indicative of what makes one oil superior over another oil.

I certainly don't think Amsoil is a bad product, and actually I am sure it is pretty good. But it is a little too convenient how it always comes out on top, and really amazing that Mobil 1 tests at the bottom of the heap, even worse than the conventional oils on the Amsoil website. That makes me wonder about the relevance of the tests they use, in addition to the issues I raised about "cause and effect" relative to the Fe in the oil being indicative of engine wear in modern engines.

 

[buster]

4-ball wear test.

The more marketing [censored] I hear from ALL oil companies today makes me appreciate Mobil's approach to marketing. Let the OEM's and race teams endorse the product.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: buster
4-ball wear test.

Could you elaborate on that please?

 

[buster]

4-ball wear test doesn't correlate to engine wear. It's used as a pre-screen to check certain aspects of additives.

Amsoil is one of the best oils for extended drains.

 

[Mark888]

After a quick google search for "4-ball wear test" I found this post in another forum by someone named "Buster":

"I'm curious as to what the opinions are to this test having any relevance to actual engine wear? The opinions I've received from Mobil, Redline, Castrol, Havoline and BITOG is that it's a very misleading test that has no correlation to actual engine wear. For one, it's mainly for grease. The other issue I have with it is, according to Redline, their are many additives that you could add to an oil that would produce a great wear scar, but, would do nothing for your engine. So why spend the money on these additives? That was RL's take on it. It must fool alot of people though. However, I often wonder why other companies don't go after Amsoil on this test. Mobil claims it's an inexpensive test that has no significance at all."

 

[Mark888]

Here is some more information about the "4-ball wear test."

"D4172-94(2004) Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.L0.11
See Related Work by this Subcommittee
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.02


1. Scope

1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D2266.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents

D2266 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)
B3.12 Specification for Metal Balls"

The test is designed for testing grease, not motor oil. Even though most oil companies use it to test grease and other machine lubricants, apparently only Amsoil makes claims that it has any relevance as a test of motor oil inside an internal combustion engine.