It’s called sarcasm. This thread needs to die
LSJr tests and discusses DexosD babymax oils
- Thread starter johnmyster
- Start date
Yes, these are great ACEA C3 diesel specific (DPF/DEF friendly) Euro oils. I highly recommend them to the diesel owners. Both oils cover VW 504, VW 507, MB 229.31/229.51/229.52.
Mobil 1 ESP European Car 0W-30
https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/for-personal-vehicles/our-products/products/mobil-1-esp-0w-30
Castrol Euro 0W-30 LL
https://www.castrol.com/en_us/united-states/home/products/our-brands/automotive/castrol-edge-oils/castrol-edge-euro.html#tab_0W-30 LL
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
UOA's are about the condition of the lubricant. Insight into potential health issues with the engine is a secondary, and potentially valuable use, but it's not the primary purpose of the tool, which is to gauge the condition of the lubricant, its levels of contamination and determine suitability for continued use. You have to remember that the primary, and dominant, use of UOA's is on large sump industrial and commercial equipment where downtime is expensive and so is oil, so maximizing OCI length through the monitoring of lubricant health is of significant value, as well as potential insight into developing mechanical issues that may be caught early. They are not a comparative performance tool.
You are presented with what is effectively atomic accounting expressed in parts per million based on a very narrow band of material at the bottom of the size range (below ~5 microns IIRC) determined by dissolving it in plasma. The sources for iron atoms accounted for in this method for example, are myriad. Chemical chelation from aggressive AW chemistry (ZDDP bonding with the surface), or polar components/compounds (esters for example), corrosion, physical wear...etc. And there is no way to determine, using just the data presented on a standard UOA, what that origin is. Particle counts can help provide a somewhat clearer picture, but you still have a pretty massive blind spot.
The proper trending of UOA's involves doing a series of them and finding out what the range for "normal" is for your lubricant and your equipment, and then, assuming your duty cycle remains reasonably consistent, continuing to track "normal", monitoring for significant departures from that baseline, either in the condition of the lubricant, or what is presented by the equipment, and then performing an investigation if warranted.
This is great info. Wouldn't the baseline be established in this case by the 450+ UOA's SpeeDiagnostix has performed on the 3.0 Duramax? The particle count scenario is understood and appears to translate consistently as well so not sure where unknown particles would come from in this case.
Not in this case. Because that large sample is taken from many different engines (even though they are all the ‘same’), with different levels of break-in, with different drivers and driving styles.
Agreed. Without a proper statistical analysis it's impossible to say what is a significant sample size. People equate a large sample to significance which is not necessarily the case. If something is in the noise of an experiment then no amount of samples will elevate it above that noise.
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
LSJr aside - UOA’s are quite entertaining here
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
In a macro sense you can get an idea (with wide error bars) as to what "normal" trends are for this particular engine, and the piece of equipment it is fitted to, as long as you understand that due to this being obtained from different pieces of equipment with significant variation in operating profile (conditions, type of service, driving style...etc.) and differing lengths of trending histories that when aggregating this information, that this approach drives the width of the scatter you are going to observe in the results; makes the range of what is "normal" pretty broad.
A CAT dozer doing the same service daily with the same lube, sampled say every 200 hours, that's going to produce a scatter plot of what "normal" is for that piece of equipment.
A CAT backup genset with the same engine operated in Fairbanks that gets exercised once a week and sampled at the same interval, run on a different lube, is going to have a different scatter for "normal".
Yes, you can aggregate them, combining it under "trends" for this engine model, but this will necessarily increase the overall width of the error bars and is useful mostly for identifying significant excursions from "normal" for engines without an operating history run on one of the same lubes.
Another example: we know GM small blocks and FCA HEMI engines have higher rates of iron uptake per thousand miles than other engine families. We also know that certain FCA/Stellantis engines throw copper, and this is heavily influenced by lubricant selection and is not due to mechanical wear. So, if you've got a HEMI with no analysis history and it throws 4ppm/1000 miles iron and copper is at 150ppm, having that macro data to say "that's acceptable" or "that's within the range of normal for that family" is valuable. But also understanding that "normal" for iron can be say anywhere between 2 and 7ppm/1000 miles and copper could be anything from 20 to 200 is also important.
I am looking at 50+ branches worth of sample data every day and we have some but not all 13L & 16L showing elevated levels of silver. Since most units only have 1 sample so far it is impossible to draw any conclusions.
I'd be interested in seeing 3 or more consecutive results from the same user & engine with the Dexos D but that may not even be enough data to be statistically significant.
Two years ago I went round and round what oil to put in my 2024 LZ0 Silverado... Went with Schaeffers 5w/30 Euro oil.
Did one UOA, just to see if I was on the right track..... I've seen other 30 and 40 wt UOA's look good, but not this good.
I'm a 5.2ppm per 1k miles driven. ( 26ppm total / 5026) This is in the "Normal" category for most engines, but for the Steel Piston LZ0 I think this is a great result as LZ0's typically show pretty high wear metals. ( Schaeffers 8008 + PPE Oil filter + Magnetic Drain Plug)
Fuel dilution was a little bit high, as I sit in the truck doing paperwork, idleing , with the AC on ( I'm a Construction Business owner....)
Did one UOA, just to see if I was on the right track..... I've seen other 30 and 40 wt UOA's look good, but not this good.
I'm a 5.2ppm per 1k miles driven. ( 26ppm total / 5026) This is in the "Normal" category for most engines, but for the Steel Piston LZ0 I think this is a great result as LZ0's typically show pretty high wear metals. ( Schaeffers 8008 + PPE Oil filter + Magnetic Drain Plug)
Fuel dilution was a little bit high, as I sit in the truck doing paperwork, idleing , with the AC on ( I'm a Construction Business owner....)
I think people are too hard on LSJ. Yes, this is not done with great scientific rigor. However, his general message is almost always correct. He is far and away better than every other motor oil content creator. He’s a net positive and strongly educational for the unwashed masses.
Also, with the help of UOA a few people on here were proactive and found early an abnormal engine wear and then took timely measures to prevent further engine failure. Mostly of those UOA were done by Oil Analyzers, Inc.LSJr aside - UOA’s are quite entertaining here
So, YES—UOA do save engines!
Last edited:
Do your conclusion is that based on this UOA the Schaeffer’s oil is a superior oil?
Once again, not the point of this thread and not the point of his video.
Far from it. 1 sample means nothing.
It just shows, the crankshaft isn't going to fall out, any time soon!!!
Similar threads
