Look what UPS brought today! More Ravenol!
- Thread starter SubieRubyRoo
- Start date
Originally Posted by StevieC
It detects metal wear in the form of debris measured in ppm not the actual particle count of this metal wear measured in um which would be direct wear/tear. This is why trending is important because if you have an established trend and change a variable and the measured debris in the UOA spikes drastically then the particle count will have done the same thing. (Note: I'm not talking from going from 5ppm to say 20ppm, it would be much higher than this)
A particle count isn't going to tell you the chemical makeup of the particles, only SEM/EDX would do that (or in a general way an acid digestion). Besides, those particles would be much more than "wear" they would be an indication of ongoing self-destruction. If you have particles that are too large to be detected via spectrographic analysis and are visible in a particle count your engine is done for.
A particle count is intended to show the efficiency of the filtration system not to detect wear.
It detects metal wear in the form of debris measured in ppm not the actual particle count of this metal wear measured in um which would be direct wear/tear. This is why trending is important because if you have an established trend and change a variable and the measured debris in the UOA spikes drastically then the particle count will have done the same thing. (Note: I'm not talking from going from 5ppm to say 20ppm, it would be much higher than this)
A particle count isn't going to tell you the chemical makeup of the particles, only SEM/EDX would do that (or in a general way an acid digestion). Besides, those particles would be much more than "wear" they would be an indication of ongoing self-destruction. If you have particles that are too large to be detected via spectrographic analysis and are visible in a particle count your engine is done for.
A particle count is intended to show the efficiency of the filtration system not to detect wear.
Which is why I said that if the trend on a UOA went from say 15ppm on a particular metal to 400-500 you bet there would be metal debris measurable in the um range on a particle examination because it would be indicative of some serious wear/tear going on that isn't normal for the trend.
When serious wear happens it will generate it in the ppm detectable in the UOA as well as in the particle range measured in um.
Let me be clear in what I'm saying for others that might be reading this as well. Changing one oil for another and seeing an increase/decrease of even say 50ppm on a UOA is nonsense to speculate that one is better/worse than the other.
When serious wear happens it will generate it in the ppm detectable in the UOA as well as in the particle range measured in um.
Let me be clear in what I'm saying for others that might be reading this as well. Changing one oil for another and seeing an increase/decrease of even say 50ppm on a UOA is nonsense to speculate that one is better/worse than the other.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
It detects metal wear in the form of debris measured in ppm not the actual particle count of this metal wear measured in um which would be direct wear/tear. This is why trending is important because if you have an established trend and change a variable and the measured debris in the UOA spikes drastically then the particle count will have done the same thing.
Assuming the variable here is the lubricant, each lubricant will have its own "signature" that's presented in a UOA for a given piece of equipment in a given usage profile. One might be a bit higher in one metal than another, and lower on another metal. This does not mean there is more wear, simply that the signature is different. Chemical chelation is a factor here as well. Irregular bearing wear may not even show up at all in a UOA, as evidenced by the experience of former member BuickGN.
Ergo, trending, and UOA's in general, are primarily of value when used in equipment that's going to be used in the same usage profile using the same lubricant over significant mileage. OTR trucking, heavy equipment, hydraulic systems....etc. They are of more limited value in applications where the usage profile varies, lubricant selection changes....etc. That doesn't make them useless, they can still be used to identify coolant ingress, air intake tract leaks or even abnormally wearing components, however the trending is significantly less precise because of change in variables and a smaller pool of samples.
I would never suggest somebody use an oil with an HTHS of 2.3cP in an application that spec'd a lubricant with one of 2.6 based on the results of a paper. Using UOA's to proxy wear data and conclude "it's fine" is doubly dangerous because you are essentially using speculation to bolster speculation and the results could be disastrous.
Going thicker generally has no risk associated with it. Penalties? Sure. But you aren't wiping bearings and potentially tossing a rod because you used 5w-40 in an application that called for 5w-20. Conversely, an engine spec'd for 5w-30 run on 0w-16 conceivably could. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, simply pointing out the folly in assuming that 2.3cP HTHS viscosity is generally sufficient. It can be, for applications designed for it, but that in no way makes it universal.
It detects metal wear in the form of debris measured in ppm not the actual particle count of this metal wear measured in um which would be direct wear/tear. This is why trending is important because if you have an established trend and change a variable and the measured debris in the UOA spikes drastically then the particle count will have done the same thing.
Assuming the variable here is the lubricant, each lubricant will have its own "signature" that's presented in a UOA for a given piece of equipment in a given usage profile. One might be a bit higher in one metal than another, and lower on another metal. This does not mean there is more wear, simply that the signature is different. Chemical chelation is a factor here as well. Irregular bearing wear may not even show up at all in a UOA, as evidenced by the experience of former member BuickGN.
Ergo, trending, and UOA's in general, are primarily of value when used in equipment that's going to be used in the same usage profile using the same lubricant over significant mileage. OTR trucking, heavy equipment, hydraulic systems....etc. They are of more limited value in applications where the usage profile varies, lubricant selection changes....etc. That doesn't make them useless, they can still be used to identify coolant ingress, air intake tract leaks or even abnormally wearing components, however the trending is significantly less precise because of change in variables and a smaller pool of samples.
I would never suggest somebody use an oil with an HTHS of 2.3cP in an application that spec'd a lubricant with one of 2.6 based on the results of a paper. Using UOA's to proxy wear data and conclude "it's fine" is doubly dangerous because you are essentially using speculation to bolster speculation and the results could be disastrous.
Going thicker generally has no risk associated with it. Penalties? Sure. But you aren't wiping bearings and potentially tossing a rod because you used 5w-40 in an application that called for 5w-20. Conversely, an engine spec'd for 5w-30 run on 0w-16 conceivably could. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, simply pointing out the folly in assuming that 2.3cP HTHS viscosity is generally sufficient. It can be, for applications designed for it, but that in no way makes it universal.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Let me be clear in what I'm saying for others that might be reading this as well. Changing one oil for another and seeing an increase/decrease of even say 50ppm on a UOA is nonsense to speculate that one is better/worse than the other.
I agree for the most part. When I ran oil analysis in college for our fluid power and automotive engineering department, a spike from low-PPM to 1200 or higher was indication of a problem. But you had to be careful because sometimes (relatively speaking) large pieces could come off and wouldn't show up in the analysis unless an acid digestion was performed.This included digesting the filter wash. You're not going to see entrapped particles in a straight analysis regardless of the method.
Let me be clear in what I'm saying for others that might be reading this as well. Changing one oil for another and seeing an increase/decrease of even say 50ppm on a UOA is nonsense to speculate that one is better/worse than the other.
I agree for the most part. When I ran oil analysis in college for our fluid power and automotive engineering department, a spike from low-PPM to 1200 or higher was indication of a problem. But you had to be careful because sometimes (relatively speaking) large pieces could come off and wouldn't show up in the analysis unless an acid digestion was performed.This included digesting the filter wash. You're not going to see entrapped particles in a straight analysis regardless of the method.
quote
"Are there some applications that benefit from a thicker oil with more HTHS rating sure, is it the be all end all? Not at all or we would have every OE back peddling from the 20wt spec and certainly 0w16 wouldn't be a thing either. Not to mention we would have all sorts of folks running around the internet sharing their experiences how their Toyota that spec'ed 30wt over 20wt lasted longer. We have had 20wt specifications for well over a decade. Surely high mileage folks like myself would have noticed a steep decline in lifespan if wear was such a problem."
ALL applications (those using 20 grade, etc.) benefit from 30 grade with HTHS >2.6, the limit manufacturers and researchers have agreed upon for "acceptable" wear. Engines designed for the past 60 years were ALL designed to run on 30 grade (cars and light trucks). The very latest engine designs, those not back spec'd, ARE designed to use 16 and 20 grade. There are millions of engines, and those back spec'd, running on "acceptable wear" engine oils with tons of mileage on their vehicles. Most owners don't keep their vehicles long enough or the body dies long before the drive train to care. Look here on BITOG (and in the mirror) why do we obsess so much about oil when we never plan on keeping our vehicles running 20 or 30 years or more? If I were one of those I wouldn't be here. I'd run the absolute cheapest oil and filter and let the next guy deal with it. I'm not one of those...
"Are there some applications that benefit from a thicker oil with more HTHS rating sure, is it the be all end all? Not at all or we would have every OE back peddling from the 20wt spec and certainly 0w16 wouldn't be a thing either. Not to mention we would have all sorts of folks running around the internet sharing their experiences how their Toyota that spec'ed 30wt over 20wt lasted longer. We have had 20wt specifications for well over a decade. Surely high mileage folks like myself would have noticed a steep decline in lifespan if wear was such a problem."
ALL applications (those using 20 grade, etc.) benefit from 30 grade with HTHS >2.6, the limit manufacturers and researchers have agreed upon for "acceptable" wear. Engines designed for the past 60 years were ALL designed to run on 30 grade (cars and light trucks). The very latest engine designs, those not back spec'd, ARE designed to use 16 and 20 grade. There are millions of engines, and those back spec'd, running on "acceptable wear" engine oils with tons of mileage on their vehicles. Most owners don't keep their vehicles long enough or the body dies long before the drive train to care. Look here on BITOG (and in the mirror) why do we obsess so much about oil when we never plan on keeping our vehicles running 20 or 30 years or more? If I were one of those I wouldn't be here. I'd run the absolute cheapest oil and filter and let the next guy deal with it. I'm not one of those...
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by StevieC
Let me be clear in what I'm saying for others that might be reading this as well. Changing one oil for another and seeing an increase/decrease of even say 50ppm on a UOA is nonsense to speculate that one is better/worse than the other.
I agree for the most part. When I ran oil analysis in college for our fluid power and automotive engineering department, a spike from low-PPM to 1200 or higher was indication of a problem. But you had to be careful because sometimes (relatively speaking) large pieces could come off and wouldn't show up in the analysis unless an acid digestion was performed.This included digesting the filter wash. You're not going to see entrained particles in the oil itself regardless of the analysis method.
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
As for the wear showing up in the UOA, apart from tearing down the engine to do actual look/see and measurements it will eventually show the wear of whatever is going on if done regularly because the wear will get so bad that it will end up generating some sort of increase in the trend unless it's a quick catastrophic failure that hasn't had the benefit of longer to generate such information. Hopefully before it's too late to save the unit in question. That said I agree they aren't the be all end all when it comes to wear. I wish we had a better tool but we don't at the moment so the best we can do is trend and hope that a problem shows up in the range it can measure.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Let me be clear in what I'm saying for others that might be reading this as well. Changing one oil for another and seeing an increase/decrease of even say 50ppm on a UOA is nonsense to speculate that one is better/worse than the other.
I agree for the most part. When I ran oil analysis in college for our fluid power and automotive engineering department, a spike from low-PPM to 1200 or higher was indication of a problem. But you had to be careful because sometimes (relatively speaking) large pieces could come off and wouldn't show up in the analysis unless an acid digestion was performed.This included digesting the filter wash. You're not going to see entrained particles in the oil itself regardless of the analysis method.
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
As for the wear showing up in the UOA, apart from tearing down the engine to do actual look/see and measurements it will eventually show the wear of whatever is going on if done regularly because the wear will get so bad that it will end up generating some sort of increase in the trend unless it's a quick catastrophic failure that hasn't had the benefit of longer to generate such information. Hopefully before it's too late to save the unit in question. That said I agree they aren't the be all end all when it comes to wear. I wish we had a better tool but we don't at the moment so the best we can do is trend and hope that a problem shows up in the range it can measure.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Understood. It was a good number for example for me to explain myself further though and how folks stressing about something far lower is nuts.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Understood. It was a good number for example for me to explain myself further though and how folks stressing about something far lower is nuts.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
As for the wear showing up in the UOA, apart from tearing down the engine to do actual look/see and measurements it will eventually show the wear of whatever is going on if done regularly because the wear will get so bad that it will end up generating some sort of increase in the trend unless it's a quick catastrophic failure that hasn't had the benefit of longer to generate such information. Hopefully before it's too late to save the unit in question. That said I agree they aren't the be all end all when it comes to wear. I wish we had a better tool but we don't at the moment so the best we can do is trend and hope that a problem shows up in the range it can measure.
Unfortunately, with bearings, the failures can often be quite rapid and so the particles generated are large and won't show up in a UOA. That's what happened with BuickGN. His rod bearings were wearing rapidly, but the UOA's looked fine. It wasn't until oil pressure had appreciably dropped and it was making noise that tearing into it showed the problem.
Like with your camshaft failure, which had no prior indication, a roller lifter going sideways in the bore is not going to give any hints that things are about to get messy. My takeaway is that mechanical failures aren't going to be well predicted with UOA's due to their mostly sudden manifestation. On the other hand, progressive failures due to other causes, like dirt ingestion or coolant, these are readily identifiable and can really make the UOA valuable.
As for the wear showing up in the UOA, apart from tearing down the engine to do actual look/see and measurements it will eventually show the wear of whatever is going on if done regularly because the wear will get so bad that it will end up generating some sort of increase in the trend unless it's a quick catastrophic failure that hasn't had the benefit of longer to generate such information. Hopefully before it's too late to save the unit in question. That said I agree they aren't the be all end all when it comes to wear. I wish we had a better tool but we don't at the moment so the best we can do is trend and hope that a problem shows up in the range it can measure.
Unfortunately, with bearings, the failures can often be quite rapid and so the particles generated are large and won't show up in a UOA. That's what happened with BuickGN. His rod bearings were wearing rapidly, but the UOA's looked fine. It wasn't until oil pressure had appreciably dropped and it was making noise that tearing into it showed the problem.
Like with your camshaft failure, which had no prior indication, a roller lifter going sideways in the bore is not going to give any hints that things are about to get messy. My takeaway is that mechanical failures aren't going to be well predicted with UOA's due to their mostly sudden manifestation. On the other hand, progressive failures due to other causes, like dirt ingestion or coolant, these are readily identifiable and can really make the UOA valuable.
Yup, not the be all end all but still valuable where the failures aren't those described by you and Kschachan or like the failure I had in my Santa Fe, but rather the types that increase the trend drastically.
Otherwise UOA's are just for identifying other problems like coolant and the state of health of the lubricant itself.
Otherwise UOA's are just for identifying other problems like coolant and the state of health of the lubricant itself.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I would never suggest somebody use an oil with an HTHS of 2.3cP in an application that spec'd a lubricant with one of 2.6 based on the results of a paper. Using UOA's to proxy wear data and conclude "it's fine" is doubly dangerous because you are essentially using speculation to bolster speculation and the results could be disastrous.
Going thicker generally has no risk associated with it. Penalties? Sure. But you aren't wiping bearings and potentially tossing a rod because you used 5w-40 in an application that called for 5w-20. Conversely, an engine spec'd for 5w-30 run on 0w-16 conceivably could. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, simply pointing out the folly in assuming that 2.3cP HTHS viscosity is generally sufficient. It can be, for applications designed for it, but that in no way makes it universal.
Very well said. Even fuel economy benefits of going to a thinner oil aren't always there. ........ In some engines, an HTHS 2.9-3.2 is about right, and going even to an HTHS 2.6 means fuel economy gets worse! In most engines, going thinner does get you more fuel economy to be sure (and especially in the cold).
.... An example of a popular engine that gets WORSE MPG on 0w20 than it's spec'ed 0w30 is the GM 3.6L V6, of various incarnations in the last 10 years at least. That engine does not do as well on thin oil. Engineers at GM noticed that and strongly recommend 5w30 or 0w30 in it, even though they wanted to put 0w20 in it to get better CAFE MPG, obviously. .... An engineer at GM mentions that one engine case at the 3:58 point in the following youtube video:
I used to have a GM 3.6L, and I did run 0w20 in it during very cold winters where it was a tad thicker anyway, so I was probably fine. During the summer I always had an xw30 in it. Given the fuel economy benefit of using a thicker oil there, its a clear indication that too much boundary lubrication (higher friction, likely more wear there too) occurs if using a 0w20 in the summer in that engine.
I would never suggest somebody use an oil with an HTHS of 2.3cP in an application that spec'd a lubricant with one of 2.6 based on the results of a paper. Using UOA's to proxy wear data and conclude "it's fine" is doubly dangerous because you are essentially using speculation to bolster speculation and the results could be disastrous.
Going thicker generally has no risk associated with it. Penalties? Sure. But you aren't wiping bearings and potentially tossing a rod because you used 5w-40 in an application that called for 5w-20. Conversely, an engine spec'd for 5w-30 run on 0w-16 conceivably could. I'm not saying that's what you are advocating, simply pointing out the folly in assuming that 2.3cP HTHS viscosity is generally sufficient. It can be, for applications designed for it, but that in no way makes it universal.
Very well said. Even fuel economy benefits of going to a thinner oil aren't always there. ........ In some engines, an HTHS 2.9-3.2 is about right, and going even to an HTHS 2.6 means fuel economy gets worse! In most engines, going thinner does get you more fuel economy to be sure (and especially in the cold).
.... An example of a popular engine that gets WORSE MPG on 0w20 than it's spec'ed 0w30 is the GM 3.6L V6, of various incarnations in the last 10 years at least. That engine does not do as well on thin oil. Engineers at GM noticed that and strongly recommend 5w30 or 0w30 in it, even though they wanted to put 0w20 in it to get better CAFE MPG, obviously. .... An engineer at GM mentions that one engine case at the 3:58 point in the following youtube video:
I used to have a GM 3.6L, and I did run 0w20 in it during very cold winters where it was a tad thicker anyway, so I was probably fine. During the summer I always had an xw30 in it. Given the fuel economy benefit of using a thicker oil there, its a clear indication that too much boundary lubrication (higher friction, likely more wear there too) occurs if using a 0w20 in the summer in that engine.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Understood. It was a good number for example for me to explain myself further though and how folks stressing about something far lower is nuts.
But the real question is, how do you like the container?
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Understood. It was a good number for example for me to explain myself further though and how folks stressing about something far lower is nuts.
But the real question is, how do you like the container?
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Understood. It was a good number for example for me to explain myself further though and how folks stressing about something far lower is nuts.
But the real question is, how do you like the container?
Give it a rest.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by StevieC
Based on this experience of yours I wouldn't panic at the 1200ppm but I would want to monitor the situation with further UOA's to see if starts to trend down and was just an anomoly like your case or debris stuck in a bearing that works itself free.
Yeah, 1200 was just a number that stuck in my head from some bad ones we ran. It has no relevance to a defined threshold of some sort.
Understood. It was a good number for example for me to explain myself further though and how folks stressing about something far lower is nuts.
But the real question is, how do you like the container?
Give it a rest.
No video?
Cannot agree with you more. MOST engines are designed to use HTHS 2.9-3.2 and that's the "sweet spot" for protection and fuel economy. My 5w-30 (back-spec'd to 5w-20) Ranger runs smoother and get significantly better fuel economy on 5w-30. And that's with a "heavy" HM oil.
Cannot agree with you more. MOST engines are designed to use HTHS 2.9-3.2 and that's the "sweet spot" for protection and fuel economy. My 5w-30 (back-spec'd to 5w-20) Ranger runs smoother and get significantly better fuel economy on 5w-30. And that's with a "heavy" HM oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
No video?
You can't see the video? Is that what you're asking? Its a google search then for .... dexos1 2015 video angela
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Cannot agree with you more. MOST engines are designed to use HTHS 2.9-3.2 and that's the "sweet spot" for protection and fuel economy. My 5w-30 (back-spec'd to 5w-20) Ranger runs smoother and get significantly better fuel economy on 5w-30. And that's with a "heavy" HM oil.
I think we're actually disagreeing. MOST engines will get better fuel economy going thinner. .. Those engines have already gone from 5w30 in the past, to current xw20 now. The ones today that stubbornly stay at xw30 are the ones that the engineers have found do NOT benefit from going thinner (CAFE is king here). (Durability comes into play at times too, and I think thats what happened with Ford putting many Ecoboost engines at xw30 in the last few years after they started out at xw20.)
Bottom line, engines in the U.S. will use whatever oil visc gives best fuel economy without sacrificing much, if any, durability.
No video?
You can't see the video? Is that what you're asking? Its a google search then for .... dexos1 2015 video angela
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Cannot agree with you more. MOST engines are designed to use HTHS 2.9-3.2 and that's the "sweet spot" for protection and fuel economy. My 5w-30 (back-spec'd to 5w-20) Ranger runs smoother and get significantly better fuel economy on 5w-30. And that's with a "heavy" HM oil.
I think we're actually disagreeing. MOST engines will get better fuel economy going thinner. .. Those engines have already gone from 5w30 in the past, to current xw20 now. The ones today that stubbornly stay at xw30 are the ones that the engineers have found do NOT benefit from going thinner (CAFE is king here). (Durability comes into play at times too, and I think thats what happened with Ford putting many Ecoboost engines at xw30 in the last few years after they started out at xw20.)
Bottom line, engines in the U.S. will use whatever oil visc gives best fuel economy without sacrificing much, if any, durability.
Out of curiosity are you saying redline and ravenol make a better product because they list being pao/ester based or do they have a better add pack. Legit curious, I see they both make a diesel oil so I'm always inclined to trying a better oil in my hot shot rig so long as it is actually worth it. Currently operating using a 6.0 PSD and running 15-18k mile oci
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by PimTac
burla said:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked