Is testing for Fe an indication of engine wear?
- Thread starter Mark888
- Start date
- Status
It is an accurate measure of the amount of Fe currently suspended in the oil. For any particle size this is dependent on the actual wear rate, the actual filtration rate, the quantity of abrasive particles in the oil, the quantity of particles deposited in varnish and sludge deposits, and the ability of the dispersant in the oil to keep the particles in suspension, so that they may be removed by filtration.
For Fe in the oil to increase, either the filtration rate must decrease, the quantity of varnish and sludge deposited must increase, or the wear rate must increase. Any of these are not good things.
For Fe in the oil to increase, either the filtration rate must decrease, the quantity of varnish and sludge deposited must increase, or the wear rate must increase. Any of these are not good things.
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
It is an accurate measure of the amount of Fe currently suspended in the oil. For any particle size this is dependent on the actual wear rate, the actual filtration rate, the quantity of abrasive particles in the oil, the quantity of particles deposited in varnish and sludge deposits, and the ability of the dispersant in the oil to keep the particles in suspension, so that they may be removed by filtration.
For Fe in the oil to increase, either the filtration rate must decrease, the quantity of varnish and sludge deposited must increase, or the wear rate must increase. Any of these are not good things.
That assumes that the internal parts of an engine have significant amounts of metal where free Iron (Fe) atoms become unbound from their molecular structure that exist in whatever steel alloy is used for the engine part (not to mention that many engines are primarily aluminum alloy or other alloys these days). I believe that assumption is false.
It is an accurate measure of the amount of Fe currently suspended in the oil. For any particle size this is dependent on the actual wear rate, the actual filtration rate, the quantity of abrasive particles in the oil, the quantity of particles deposited in varnish and sludge deposits, and the ability of the dispersant in the oil to keep the particles in suspension, so that they may be removed by filtration.
For Fe in the oil to increase, either the filtration rate must decrease, the quantity of varnish and sludge deposited must increase, or the wear rate must increase. Any of these are not good things.
That assumes that the internal parts of an engine have significant amounts of metal where free Iron (Fe) atoms become unbound from their molecular structure that exist in whatever steel alloy is used for the engine part (not to mention that many engines are primarily aluminum alloy or other alloys these days). I believe that assumption is false.
Mark,
What are you talking about? If a particle of stainless steel is in suspension in the oil, ICP spectroscopy will identify all elemental molecular components in the alloy, including Fe.
Even in engines that use primarily Al castings, most have steel or iron sleeves. Toyota likes metal matrix composites that have been cast into the Aluminum alloy. Audi likes Alusil, which is a high silicon content aluminum that is then chemically etched to remove the aluminum in the bore, leaving glass, which is then polished. However, even in these engines there are steel and iron components, such as cams, cam followers, gears, chain drives ... etc, which all are subject to wear. My Audi Al block, Al/Si cylinder walled, Al bearing engine still shows significant Fe wear, which is highly correlated to fuel dilution and operating conditions of the engine.
What are you talking about? If a particle of stainless steel is in suspension in the oil, ICP spectroscopy will identify all elemental molecular components in the alloy, including Fe.
Even in engines that use primarily Al castings, most have steel or iron sleeves. Toyota likes metal matrix composites that have been cast into the Aluminum alloy. Audi likes Alusil, which is a high silicon content aluminum that is then chemically etched to remove the aluminum in the bore, leaving glass, which is then polished. However, even in these engines there are steel and iron components, such as cams, cam followers, gears, chain drives ... etc, which all are subject to wear. My Audi Al block, Al/Si cylinder walled, Al bearing engine still shows significant Fe wear, which is highly correlated to fuel dilution and operating conditions of the engine.
There are a whole bunch of teset like PQ ans particle counts and more tham I know about .The usual tests that we look at generally tell hoe the oil is holding up and do benefit in wear and failure warning it they are trended over many anaylsis.
The entertainment value of watching a newbie that just doesn't quite get it, but is willing to argue with a couple of the really educated guys is priceless. I know it's wrong to say that but I can't help it, it's so much fun to watch.Please forgive me, and continue the debate.
Some questions/comments:
What about oil pump parts, valve stems, tappets, drain plug threads, drain hole threads, oil cap metal tabs, dipstick tube and dipstick, chains, and a number of others I probably can't think of? These could be sources of Fe as well as cam lobes. Also the test accuracy error. Is it meaningful to love a used oil with 10ppm Fe results, and hate one with 16ppm? Is 100ppm Fe anything? What is the definition of ppm, and ppm Fe in oil analysis? Just wondering, don't know anything.
What about oil pump parts, valve stems, tappets, drain plug threads, drain hole threads, oil cap metal tabs, dipstick tube and dipstick, chains, and a number of others I probably can't think of? These could be sources of Fe as well as cam lobes. Also the test accuracy error. Is it meaningful to love a used oil with 10ppm Fe results, and hate one with 16ppm? Is 100ppm Fe anything? What is the definition of ppm, and ppm Fe in oil analysis? Just wondering, don't know anything.
1000 PPM of Element X in Mixture Y is 1,000/1,000,000 is 0.001 is 0.1% by mass or weight. That's how the math goes.
So, for example, 10 PPM of Fe in oil is 0.001% by mass.
So, for example, 10 PPM of Fe in oil is 0.001% by mass.
Originally Posted By: farrarfan1
The entertainment value of watching a newbie that just doesn't quite get it, but is willing to argue with a couple of the really educated guys is priceless. I know it's wrong to say that but I can't help it, it's so much fun to watch.Please forgive me, and continue the debate.
Just because I recently joined this forum doesn't make me a "newbie." I suppose that what you mean by newbie, is that I have not been properly indoctrinated by the dogma that permeates this subject.
I know it may be rather upsetting to some for a new member to come on this forum and upset the apple cart, and overturn the very foundations of superstition that is the basis of much of the previous thinking about oil analysis.
I have done a significant amount of research on the subject and very few highly-knowledgeable people in the industry think one can judge how well an oil protects against engine wear by measuring Fe in the an oil analysis. The best way to judge engine wear is to conduct scientifically valid tests and tear down the parts and examine them for wear, which is what the Seq IVA test does. True, the Fe levels are reported by Seq IVA, but are not directly correlated to the engine wear since actual wear measured on the camshaft is the predominate determination of how an oil protects against engine wear.
Now, I am not completely debunking oil analysis. It can be a valuable tool to determine oil change intervals. But some of the stuff I read on this forum about interpretations of other aspects of the analysis have gone way overboard, often encouraged by certain oil companies who know how to exploit the tests to their own benefit.
The entertainment value of watching a newbie that just doesn't quite get it, but is willing to argue with a couple of the really educated guys is priceless. I know it's wrong to say that but I can't help it, it's so much fun to watch.Please forgive me, and continue the debate.
Just because I recently joined this forum doesn't make me a "newbie." I suppose that what you mean by newbie, is that I have not been properly indoctrinated by the dogma that permeates this subject.
I know it may be rather upsetting to some for a new member to come on this forum and upset the apple cart, and overturn the very foundations of superstition that is the basis of much of the previous thinking about oil analysis.
I have done a significant amount of research on the subject and very few highly-knowledgeable people in the industry think one can judge how well an oil protects against engine wear by measuring Fe in the an oil analysis. The best way to judge engine wear is to conduct scientifically valid tests and tear down the parts and examine them for wear, which is what the Seq IVA test does. True, the Fe levels are reported by Seq IVA, but are not directly correlated to the engine wear since actual wear measured on the camshaft is the predominate determination of how an oil protects against engine wear.
Now, I am not completely debunking oil analysis. It can be a valuable tool to determine oil change intervals. But some of the stuff I read on this forum about interpretations of other aspects of the analysis have gone way overboard, often encouraged by certain oil companies who know how to exploit the tests to their own benefit.
Originally Posted By: Newtonville
Some questions/comments:
What about oil pump parts, valve stems, tappets, drain plug threads, drain hole threads, oil cap metal tabs, dipstick tube and dipstick, chains, and a number of others I probably can't think of? These could be sources of Fe as well as cam lobes. Also the test accuracy error. Is it meaningful to love a used oil with 10ppm Fe results, and hate one with 16ppm? Is 100ppm Fe anything? What is the definition of ppm, and ppm Fe in oil analysis? Just wondering, don't know anything.
These are excellent and relevant points. Don't feel like because you are new to the discussion that you don't have any good ideas. Sometimes (often in fact) a fresh view of the situation can reveal some obvious flaws that those on the inside don't notice.
I wonder also, even assuming there was some validity to the test for Fe and engine wear (which I not willing to admit), whether such tests are conducted properly. For example, to be accurate, the same engine or identical engines would have to be tested. If the same engine was tested back-to-back with different oils, how much residual Fe is there at the bottom of the oil pan that could get incorporated into the new oil put into the crankcase. And as already noted, some oils do a better job of suspending particulates than other oils.
The number of variables here is astronomical. But bottom line is that if you want to evaluate a motor oil for how much engine wear occurs when using it, look at the engine. That my be inconvenient (or impossible) for the average person, but that doesn't make using a inferior method of analysis for engine wear any less invalid.
Some questions/comments:
What about oil pump parts, valve stems, tappets, drain plug threads, drain hole threads, oil cap metal tabs, dipstick tube and dipstick, chains, and a number of others I probably can't think of? These could be sources of Fe as well as cam lobes. Also the test accuracy error. Is it meaningful to love a used oil with 10ppm Fe results, and hate one with 16ppm? Is 100ppm Fe anything? What is the definition of ppm, and ppm Fe in oil analysis? Just wondering, don't know anything.
These are excellent and relevant points. Don't feel like because you are new to the discussion that you don't have any good ideas. Sometimes (often in fact) a fresh view of the situation can reveal some obvious flaws that those on the inside don't notice.
I wonder also, even assuming there was some validity to the test for Fe and engine wear (which I not willing to admit), whether such tests are conducted properly. For example, to be accurate, the same engine or identical engines would have to be tested. If the same engine was tested back-to-back with different oils, how much residual Fe is there at the bottom of the oil pan that could get incorporated into the new oil put into the crankcase. And as already noted, some oils do a better job of suspending particulates than other oils.
The number of variables here is astronomical. But bottom line is that if you want to evaluate a motor oil for how much engine wear occurs when using it, look at the engine. That my be inconvenient (or impossible) for the average person, but that doesn't make using a inferior method of analysis for engine wear any less invalid.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
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.
Yes, there is quite a lot of marketing involved, and you're right to ask those questions.
However, it's entirely plausible (although I can't say how probable it is) that Amsoil really is better than Mobil 1, for two reasons:
1. Mobil may just be in a groove with their chemistries that is difficult to get out of. Maybe their supply chain is really long and really efficient with certain chemicals. Maybe the big OEMs are so used to building for their formulations. Maybe their top engineers are just too absorbed by what they've been doing for years. Smaller companies like Amsoil are much more nimble and are frequently able to outmaneuver the big boys pound-for-pound.
2. Mobil just doesn't have to make their product any better than it is. It's a known quantity, it's readily available by the boatload, and it protects just enough in most cases that something else will kill the car long before there is an oil-related failure. That's more than enough to pay the bills. Amsoil will never dislodge them from that position in the market, so it has to rely on the performance of its products.
I have to imagine that if Mobil really wanted to, it could crush Amsoil like a bug. That doesn't happen because it doesn't make financial sense. It'd be a huge financial expenditure, plus the elimination of a source of revenue (Amsoil buys its PAO from Mobil), just to capture a very very small portion of the market that will ditch them anyway as soon as something new comes along.
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.
Yes, there is quite a lot of marketing involved, and you're right to ask those questions.
However, it's entirely plausible (although I can't say how probable it is) that Amsoil really is better than Mobil 1, for two reasons:
1. Mobil may just be in a groove with their chemistries that is difficult to get out of. Maybe their supply chain is really long and really efficient with certain chemicals. Maybe the big OEMs are so used to building for their formulations. Maybe their top engineers are just too absorbed by what they've been doing for years. Smaller companies like Amsoil are much more nimble and are frequently able to outmaneuver the big boys pound-for-pound.
2. Mobil just doesn't have to make their product any better than it is. It's a known quantity, it's readily available by the boatload, and it protects just enough in most cases that something else will kill the car long before there is an oil-related failure. That's more than enough to pay the bills. Amsoil will never dislodge them from that position in the market, so it has to rely on the performance of its products.
I have to imagine that if Mobil really wanted to, it could crush Amsoil like a bug. That doesn't happen because it doesn't make financial sense. It'd be a huge financial expenditure, plus the elimination of a source of revenue (Amsoil buys its PAO from Mobil), just to capture a very very small portion of the market that will ditch them anyway as soon as something new comes along.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
...it's entirely plausible (although I can't say how probable it is) that Amsoil really is better than Mobil 1
I am not necessarily questioning whether Amsoil is better than Mobil 1 (however, both companies make many different products and Amsoil is not always be comparing against the best M1 products).
What I was questioning was one set of graphs that showed M1 the worst on a list of about 8-10 oils, many of which were conventional oils (not synthetics or blends). However, after looking at the official Amsoil website, that does not appear to be the case, and what I was looking at was apaprently a website from a major Amsoil distributor (don't have the link handy at the moment).
I have nothing against Amsoil products, but their marketing is somewhat suspect IMO. It is fairly easy to make a synthetic that will outperform regular M1 sold in the US, but if you compare Mobil 1 ESP sold in Europe (or available at Mercedes dealers in the US), I think ESP would compare very favorably against the best Amsoil products. Neither of these products (Amsoil or Mobil 1 ESP) is particularly easy for the average person to find at economical prices, or to have installed for them by a shop, unless they want to get their oil changed at a Mercedes dealer (or maybe VW).
Also, I notice that on the Amsoil official website, they compare 10w30 oils, which has not been recommended for most new cars for a very long time. I would like to see tests of the 5W-20 and 5w30 weights, and include Castrol Syntec and Edge.
...it's entirely plausible (although I can't say how probable it is) that Amsoil really is better than Mobil 1
I am not necessarily questioning whether Amsoil is better than Mobil 1 (however, both companies make many different products and Amsoil is not always be comparing against the best M1 products).
What I was questioning was one set of graphs that showed M1 the worst on a list of about 8-10 oils, many of which were conventional oils (not synthetics or blends). However, after looking at the official Amsoil website, that does not appear to be the case, and what I was looking at was apaprently a website from a major Amsoil distributor (don't have the link handy at the moment).
I have nothing against Amsoil products, but their marketing is somewhat suspect IMO. It is fairly easy to make a synthetic that will outperform regular M1 sold in the US, but if you compare Mobil 1 ESP sold in Europe (or available at Mercedes dealers in the US), I think ESP would compare very favorably against the best Amsoil products. Neither of these products (Amsoil or Mobil 1 ESP) is particularly easy for the average person to find at economical prices, or to have installed for them by a shop, unless they want to get their oil changed at a Mercedes dealer (or maybe VW).
Also, I notice that on the Amsoil official website, they compare 10w30 oils, which has not been recommended for most new cars for a very long time. I would like to see tests of the 5W-20 and 5w30 weights, and include Castrol Syntec and Edge.
I guess I did know what ppm means in oil analysis. Using arithmetic and a scale I have made a little rough justice estimate of 100ppm Fe in 5 US qts of oil is about 1/8 of a dime sized piece of iron. That's a bit more iron wear than my ppm imagination thought.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
...The best way to judge engine wear is to conduct scientifically valid tests and tear down the parts and examine them for wear, which is what the Seq IVA test does...
When the cost of tearing down an engine, measuring for wear and putting it all back together approaches $25 I'll do that instead of a used oil analysis.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
...For Fe in the oil to increase, either the filtration rate must decrease, the quantity of varnish and sludge deposited must increase, or the wear rate must increase. Any of these are not good things.
That assumes that the internal parts of an engine have significant amounts of metal where free Iron (Fe) atoms become unbound from their molecular structure that exist in whatever steel alloy is used for the engine part...I believe that assumption is false.
You seem to be telling us that engines with metal parts in them don't wear at all. If engines have produce any amount of wear in them, will that show up in the oil? How could it not?
Clark
...The best way to judge engine wear is to conduct scientifically valid tests and tear down the parts and examine them for wear, which is what the Seq IVA test does...
When the cost of tearing down an engine, measuring for wear and putting it all back together approaches $25 I'll do that instead of a used oil analysis.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
...For Fe in the oil to increase, either the filtration rate must decrease, the quantity of varnish and sludge deposited must increase, or the wear rate must increase. Any of these are not good things.
That assumes that the internal parts of an engine have significant amounts of metal where free Iron (Fe) atoms become unbound from their molecular structure that exist in whatever steel alloy is used for the engine part...I believe that assumption is false.
You seem to be telling us that engines with metal parts in them don't wear at all. If engines have produce any amount of wear in them, will that show up in the oil? How could it not?
Clark
Originally Posted By: Newtonville
I guess I did know what ppm means in oil analysis. Using arithmetic and a scale I have made a little rough justice estimate of 100ppm Fe in 5 US qts of oil is about 1/8 of a dime sized piece of iron. That's a bit more iron wear than my ppm imagination thought.
What? Can you explain that for me? I don't think any oil would wear 1/8 of a dimes sized amount of iron, not even Crisco Corn Oil.
I guess I did know what ppm means in oil analysis. Using arithmetic and a scale I have made a little rough justice estimate of 100ppm Fe in 5 US qts of oil is about 1/8 of a dime sized piece of iron. That's a bit more iron wear than my ppm imagination thought.
What? Can you explain that for me? I don't think any oil would wear 1/8 of a dimes sized amount of iron, not even Crisco Corn Oil.
Actually it's closer to 1/4 of a dime.
PPM= mg/L
5L x 100 ppm = 500 mg =0.5g
A dime weighs 2.2g
0.5g/2.2g=0.227
Ed
PPM= mg/L
5L x 100 ppm = 500 mg =0.5g
A dime weighs 2.2g
0.5g/2.2g=0.227
Ed
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Actually it's closer to 1/4 of a dime.
PPM= mg/L
5L x 100 ppm = 500 mg =0.5g
A dime weighs 2.2g
0.5g/2.2g=0.227
Ed
Metals are far heavier than oil, so not sure if that works.
Actually it's closer to 1/4 of a dime.
PPM= mg/L
5L x 100 ppm = 500 mg =0.5g
A dime weighs 2.2g
0.5g/2.2g=0.227
Ed
Metals are far heavier than oil, so not sure if that works.
That's exactly how it works. A milligram is a milligram. An aqueous 100 ppm Fe standard would be made by dissolving 100 miligrams of pure Fe in a quantity of acid and diluting to 1L with distilled water. Oil standards would be made using an organic, oil soluble, Fe containing compound in an amount that contained exactly 100 mg of Fe.
Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?
Ed
Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?
Ed
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Actually it's closer to 1/4 of a dime.
PPM= mg/L
5L x 100 ppm = 500 mg =0.5g
A dime weighs 2.2g
0.5g/2.2g=0.227
Ed
Good example, to me 100 ppm of iron is a lot of wear then, especially to someone who really cherishes their vehicle and wants to keep them a long time.
Now we go full circle and ask, is the iron really from wear, or some chemical reaction that shows Fe in an analysis? Once again the only true way to accurately measure engine wear is the very impractical tear down. Or just take the analysis results with a grain of salt, and look for dirt injestion, anti-freeze, excess fuel, and bearing wear, then call it a day.
Actually it's closer to 1/4 of a dime.
PPM= mg/L
5L x 100 ppm = 500 mg =0.5g
A dime weighs 2.2g
0.5g/2.2g=0.227
Ed
Good example, to me 100 ppm of iron is a lot of wear then, especially to someone who really cherishes their vehicle and wants to keep them a long time.
Now we go full circle and ask, is the iron really from wear, or some chemical reaction that shows Fe in an analysis? Once again the only true way to accurately measure engine wear is the very impractical tear down. Or just take the analysis results with a grain of salt, and look for dirt injestion, anti-freeze, excess fuel, and bearing wear, then call it a day.
mark
Interesting that you ignored my posting, debunking the suspension theory and the theory that:
Quote:
That assumes that the internal parts of an engine have significant amounts of metal where free Iron (Fe) atoms become unbound from their molecular structure that exist in whatever steel alloy is used for the engine part (not to mention that many engines are primarily aluminum alloy or other alloys these days). I believe that assumption is false.
It seems that all you want to do is argue against Amsoil or "xxx" oil company marketing. That's fine, but do not use lousy assumptions to denigrate the usefulness of oil analysis as one means to track wear - among other useful things. In the right hands, and with the right lab and equipment, much can be done to diagnose and fine tune an engine.
Interesting that you ignored my posting, debunking the suspension theory and the theory that:
Quote:
That assumes that the internal parts of an engine have significant amounts of metal where free Iron (Fe) atoms become unbound from their molecular structure that exist in whatever steel alloy is used for the engine part (not to mention that many engines are primarily aluminum alloy or other alloys these days). I believe that assumption is false.
It seems that all you want to do is argue against Amsoil or "xxx" oil company marketing. That's fine, but do not use lousy assumptions to denigrate the usefulness of oil analysis as one means to track wear - among other useful things. In the right hands, and with the right lab and equipment, much can be done to diagnose and fine tune an engine.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked