Lab Comparo: Valvoline MaxLife Syn 5W-30, 3980 mi Toyota Land Cruiser

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tim

Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
828
Location
TX
Earlier this year I received a UOA from Oilguard that had a suspicious lack of wear metal, even for the short intervals I ran (2,750 miles). Several others chimed in that they too had received suspiciously clean UOAs from Oilguard.

I decided to run to about 4,000 miles and send samples to both Oilguard and Blackstone for comparison puposes.

Oil is SL Maxlife group III that I got for $2 at Autozone. Engine is the 4.5 liter inline 6 - no mods on the engine. Running Purolator paper filter (about 5,000 miles on it at the start) and Napa Gold 1515 oil filter.

1 quart make-up (leaks a little at the rear main seal and pan arch). Seems to eat a little bit, too!

Miles are about 50% highway, 50% Houston commute. Includes two trips to the hunting lease where it was really dry and dusty. More idling than usual in the dusty conditions as we did some late night work in the headlights (it was 104 F during the day so we were trying to work when it was cooler!).

First column is BITOG VOA #, second is Blackstone, third is Oilguard. Not all tests done by both labs...if the format goes haywire, maybe a mod will help me out!
code:





......VOA......Blackstone.....Oilguard

AL.....5............2.............1

CR.....0............0.............0

FE.....1............3.............0

CU.....0............3.............4

PB.....0............1.............0

Tin....0............0.............0

MO.....255.........326...........219

NI.....0............0.............0

MN.....0............0.............0

AG.....0............0.............0

TI.....0............0.............0

K......0............0.............2

B......0............0.............0

SI.....3...........16.............9

NA.....1............4.............1

CA.....3078.......3396............na

MG.....11...........13............na

P......821.........857............na

ZN.....924.........991............na

BA.....0............0.............0

TBN....na...........na............8

Visc...11.8........11.5..........11.0

FP.....na..........395...........na

Insol..na..........0.4...........0.5


Fuel, antifreeze, water all zero

Blackstone seems to show high additives of CA, P, Moly and ZN relative to the VOA. Oilguard seemed to have a much more believable Moly number.

Boths labs showed significantly less AL than the VOA. Oilguard was higher than Blackstone on CU and K, lower on FE and PB.

I have the feeling that the metals are low enough in the samples that I am now wishing I had waited until 5 or 6,000 miles to send them in. This engine does not seem to throw much metal around!

In the five samples tested from this engine to date, the Blackstone is the only one in double-digits on SI. The other four ranged from 5 to 9. Generally, the filtration systems on Cruisers are very good so long as the tube running from the air box to the throttle body has not been abused and cracked. Mine is fine. The Blackstone sample was the very first ever taken from the new Fumoto. I even wondered if the Fumoto may have contributed a ppm or two CU as previous samples have not shown 3-4ppm CU, but 1.

Comments welcome.

Tim

[ October 11, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
 
Thanks for doing this.

I think the Al in the VOA (sounds HIGH) may have been a fluke.

The Mo is rediculously inaccurate.

Visc - people get all weirded out when Amsoil goes from 11.8 to 12.1 (or whatever) but you have a .5 delta between labs!

I will say this, semimetallic elements by their nature are hard to measure with tight precsion and accuracy. P, Ca, Mn, Na, Ba, even Si and Mo can be tough in a $15 analysis - so when people are haggling about 1 or 3 ppm, I just lean back and chucklehead.
 
so statistically labs can vary between 25-100% on "wear" metals. how can one even trend UOAs on the same engine with this amount of variability? seems like the $20 would be better spent on an oil change than on a UOA unless you're getting coolant in your oil.

thanks for doing the comparo, by the way.
 
quote:

Originally posted by surfstar:
so statistically labs can vary between 25-100% on "wear" metals. how can one even trend UOAs on the same engine with this amount of variability? seems like the $20 would be better spent on an oil change than on a UOA unless you're getting coolant in your oil.

thanks for doing the comparo, by the way.


It seems to me that... When the metals get this low the potential error gets to be a major percentage of the measurement. Too large in fact.

If you have a reading of 3ppm and the potential error is +- 3ppm the measurement is worthless. Yet if the real number was 30ppm, +- 3ppm is only 10% and you'd have a reasonable measurement...

[ October 11, 2005, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: jsharp ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by surfstar:
so statistically labs can vary between 25-100% on "wear" metals. how can one even trend UOAs on the same engine with this amount of variability? seems like the $20 would be better spent on an oil change than on a UOA unless you're getting coolant in your oil.

thanks for doing the comparo, by the way.


As Pablo said you can't get bent out of shape if lead is say 8 compared to 3. I think maybe 25% is a reasonable number that you could look at as far as accuracy. That's only an uneducated guess on my part. And when you think of it 25% is probaboy more than good enough. We all probably look at these numbers too close sometimes.
 
My main point is not so much that 8ppm vs. 3 ppm lead may or may not be significant (it could be!) - it was more like - if you think the error is high for the true metals such as Pb or Fe - you really won't like the error of the semi/non-metals.

Al and jsharp - great points. The ads such a Ca, for example, get buried in the "noise fuzz"....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top