Lab Comparisons: Bl.Stone/ Wearcheck on a sample

21Rouge · Nov 25, 2005

I double sampled my first run of GC 0W-30 as I didnt want to lose it in transit. I sent one off across the border to Blackstone and one to the local company Wearcheck. I just got back the Wearcheck #s. First column is BStone and second is today's Wearcheck report.

3,600 miles on oil
9,000 miles on 1zzfe engine
German Castrol Syntec 0w3
YZZF2 oil filter
OEM air filter
40/60 city/hwy driving
4L oil capacity
No top up oil

Iron 7/ 6.9
Lead 1/ 0
Aluminum 2/ 2.8
Copper 17/ 17
Chromium 0/ 0.3
Nickel 0/ 0
Titanium 0/ 0
Tin 0/ 0
Silver 0/ 0
Silicon 15/ 15
Potassium 2/ 0
Sodium 3/ 2
Boron 12/ 13
Barium 0/ 0.2
Calcium 2662/ 2883
Magnesium 116/ 122
Moly 8/ 8.5
Phosphorus 704/ 778
Zinc 817/ 891
Manganese 1/ not tested

Fuel Water 0.0/ Antifreeze 0.0/ -
Insolubles 0.3/ ??

SUS Viscosity at 210 deg F 60.2/ Visc at 212 deg F is 11.1

Oxidation: not sure what this corresponds to with BStone/ 64 at Wearcheck
FLASHPOINT in deg F 380/ ??

TBN: 6.5/ 8.33

TAN: ??/ 2.19

Sulfation: ??/ 44 at Wearcheck
Nitration: ??/ 49 at Wearcheck

[ November 25, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Boxgrover ]

buster · Nov 25, 2005

Impressive, I didn't think they would be that close. Blackstones TBN is more on the low end as we see often. Thanks for sharing this.

Bryanccfshr · Nov 25, 2005

Like Buster said, closer than could be expected with the margin of error. I always expect lower TBN readings with blackstone Usually just adding 2 to the Blackstone number will put you close to the more common test methods.

Suprisingly close results. Good QA CHECK.

Al · Nov 25, 2005

Great post..thanks.

pscholte · Nov 25, 2005

Well done, Bg...an interesting comparison.

Bill in Utah · Nov 25, 2005

Excellent that you did this.

Thank you!

Take care, Bill

SSDude · Nov 25, 2005

Thanks.

Blue_Goose · Nov 25, 2005

Are you going to continue to use the GC Boxgrover? I'm a little less than enthused about the performance or MPG I've been getting from it after almost 3K.

Probably going with with Havoline 5W30, Chevron 5W30 or perhaps the Castrol Syntec blend 5W30 that Bill in UT has had good luck with next OIC.

Patman · Nov 25, 2005

Thanks for doing this! It's nice to see how close the two results are! (especially since I use Wearcheck)

21Rouge · Nov 25, 2005

quote:

Are you going to continue to use the GC Boxgrover?

Not sure yet. As you may know I am doing a bit of an experiment. I have done UOA of M1 5w30 and most recently one for GC. I currently am running M1 0W-30. It will see the worst of winter. When this gets pulled...sometime in February, I will do a run of XD 0W-30. Although there are lots of variables I am confident that Terry can sort through it all and choose a winner. I will go with the oil that has the best UOA according to Terry.

[ November 26, 2005, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Boxgrover ]

Cutehumor · Nov 26, 2005

we haven't really seen any questionable UOAs. VOAs are another topic.

Even my crappy oilguard kits have shown comparable results with another lab. Thanks for posting.

MN Driver · Nov 26, 2005

I was planning on doing this for my first UOA with both Blackstone and Butler Labs but then determining the process of getting the Butler Labs UOA's after losing Mark left me confused with how to order kits, so I never got it. The part that had me wondering the most was what the mileage recommendation differences would be between oil analysis companies because it seems like it would be the variable that could be very different.

Dick in Falls Church · Nov 27, 2005

Most, if not all, of the labs participate in round-robin testing. This helps assure that the equipment is calibrated properly.
You shouldn't see way out-of-line differences between labs, keeping in mind that the margin of error at those rates is somewhere in the plus or minus 40% range.

Another reason to keep in mind that a single oil sample is not nearly as useful as a series, where you could more readily distinguish variances fromt he norm. Obviously, severe contamination from coolant or fuel is excepted.

1 FMF · Nov 28, 2005

quote:

SUS Viscosity at 210 deg F 60.2/ Visc at 212 deg F is 11.1

blackstone reports 60.2 SUS A 210F = 10.37 cSt.

wearcheck reports 11.1 cSt at 212F.

if I converted the 60.2 SUS correctly, does this mean we should expect viscosity measurement accuracy to be +/- one half centistoke? After all the rest of the report was very close. Do the labs test differently for viscosity?

I had asked once before but never got a straight answer on viscosity measurement accuracy and resolution.

half a centistoke at 100 cSt is 0.5%. half a centistoke at 10 Cst is 5%. Does it matter where in the scale the measurement is taken? Maybe expect +/- 0.5 cSt in the 10 cSt range and +/- 5 cSt in the 100 cSt range?

salesrep · Nov 28, 2005

Very close reports. Fuel dilution diff?

vad · Nov 28, 2005

Why is copper so high after only 3.5K?
Is the engine still breaking-in?

Nice comparison BTW.

Gary Allan · Nov 28, 2005

quote:

I had asked once before but never got a straight answer on viscosity measurement accuracy and resolution.

Looks like you still aren't

+/- 5% ...sounds like a reasonable variable ..but since I don't know crap about viscometers (in spite of going to high school with the son of one of THE three Brookfield brothers of Brookfield Engineering) ..I don't know if that would be cosidered sloppy for someone doing viscosity readings

21Rouge · Nov 28, 2005

quote:

Why is copper so high after only 3.5K? Is the engine still breaking-in?

I would think that with less than 10 k miles at the time of sample the elevated copper is a product of break in? The immediately previous UOA on this same engine (M1 5w30) can be found here: http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002886

And copper at that time was 25 so it has come down as hoped.

I currently have M1 0W-30 in the engine.

turbochem · Nov 28, 2005

quote:

Fuel dilution diff?

Seems like a differnce in precision issue where one can get it correct to the nearest 2% and the other to the nearest 0.5%. Also, each company's instrumentation may have a difference in the minimum amount of dillution that can be detected (0.5% vs. 2%). That would also explain the "less than" symbols.

So, if the real fuel dillution is (hypothetically) 0.3%....both reports are correct.

That's my take.

Jay · Nov 28, 2005

I'm also glad to see the close agreement between the two labs, especially in the wear metals.

Thanks for the reports.

Lab Comparisons: Bl.Stone/ Wearcheck on a sample

Similar threads