No, some comes off in particles that are filtered out to protect the ICP. You need some preprocessing of the sample to measure that, or a different analytical method.
LSJr tests and discusses DexosD babymax oils
- Thread starter johnmyster
- Start date
At what rate is wear metal dropping with every oil change? LSJ presented that data from his N=many data.
If Wagler had a young engine on the test stand, looks like pretty steep trend with tighter error bars than I'd expect. The mileage equivalent of those 20 RPM sweeps at WOT becomes the question if one wants to correlate one thing to the other.
Other users have cut wear metals in half? Looks like the engine does that on its own.
LSJ pointed to an actual wear metal trend in these engines over a N=many sample size and then ignored any influence of that trend on his N=1 data. Not only was his data statistically irrelevant, the deltas he observed are statistically irrelevant within the error/noise of wear metal spectrographic results. The range of iron was zero to three.
I'm not saying 0w-20 is the secret sauce for LZ0. I'm saying there's plausible noise in the "data" used to arrive at the conclusion. You'll never really know unless you swap back and see the trend reverse.
And some might be big enough to be in the oil filter, on a magnet, or lying in the oil pan.
Last edited:
One of the many uncontrolled variables here and a good example of why this type of analysis is not used for comparative wear comparisons.
We just need a jubilee debate. Lake speed jr vs 20 bitogers
Two completely different engines.
LZ0 is a steel piston motor
LM2 is a aluminum piston motor.
Many other small changes to the valvetrain, fuel injection, etc.
I would not compare any UOA's , between the two
We get it. You don’t like used oil analysis. And you’re wrong. There’s plenty of data, you just don’t like it but it’s there. Use it or don’t. It’s your choice. I’m going to use oil analysis data to my advantage.
Last edited:
None of them are a UOA because they aren’t supposed to be. They are completely different tests with completely different objectives. They are apples and oranges, stop comparing them.
I think one of @kschachn (and he can correct me if I am wrong) main points is using an UOA to compare wear between oils. He has mentioned before that Blackstone says there is no statistical difference in any of the oils they’ve tested.
I’m of the opinion (after reading countless opinions here) that UOA are valuable, but more for seeing what the engine is doing to the oil and perhaps to catch an early problem.
The objective is measuring wear differences between oils. What I’m saying is that using these UOA like this is technically wrong. Flat wrong and useless for that determination. And a YouTube influencer who claims otherwise is completely unwarranted in claiming that it is.
Last edited:
I’d love to hear your analysis of that “plenty of data” and how “it’s there”.
And you misunderstand, it’s not that I don’t like used oil analysis. I think they have a use. But it’s not to demonstrate comparative wear between two oils like is being presented in that video, nor most times as it is done here on Bitog. Not the tool for the job but people like it because it’s inexpensive and you get “wear numbers” that look significant.
Who wouldn’t like a $35 test that shows how one oil is superior to another?
Last edited:
I guess you're right. The "highly upgraded" LZ0 has trust bearing wear that the LM2 does not, so they're entirely different animals.
Timing chain. Wet belts. Wait, since when was piston scuffing an LM2/LZ0 concern that we were trying to pick up in a UOA?
Strangely when I pointed to the data you didn't like what it said...or didn't say.
For the record, @kschachn isn't entirely against UOAs. He's pretty convinced the UOA potassium marker is the only way one could ever detect a coolant leak.
In a room full of people that like to obsess over their next oil change, you've read your audience well.
Last edited:
No it’s not wrong at all. This is where I go my separate way, we aren’t ever going to agree on this.
Strangely, I haven’t even responded to this yet, let alone do I remember saying anything about “not liking it”.
The downward trend of wear metals in this engine is over several thousands of miles. It’s likely NOT significant enough of a factor in this test of what appears to be rather short dyno pulls.
There are at least a hand full of people (probably more) who continuously show disdain for UOAs and how people use them (I mean no offense to anybody who may fall in this category). Their reasoning behind why, in my opinion, doesn’t always make sense. Like someone said on this thread “paralysis by analysis”, no matter how much data is posted it won’t be enough and they will demand more. They will always find something wrong or something missing with whatever test someone does. Lots of UOA data out there to check out, we are all free to use it or dismiss it.
You are definitely his target audience.
Why doesn’t their reasoning make sense? Honest question.
Those first two data bins sure look like single OCIs, a factor of two reduction, and non-overlapping error bars.
Not liking it: to use different words, reject the information that doesn't support the preferred hypothesis.
A question I asked as well and has yet to be answered in any meaningful way.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
- Messages
- 631
It’s like when we were younger and we asked our parents why, and they said, 'Because I said so,' and we would all respond, 'That’s not a reason.'
The part I'm curious about, if UOA's don't show wear.................once the engine is broken in, where do the higher wear metals in the thinner oils come from? How are they not coming from the engine, how is that not wear in the engine?
One or two UOAs with statistically insignificant differences in wear metals, you bet that means nothing, but we now have hundreds or thousands of UOAs showing a trend.
Maybe the difference is still statistically insignificant, if one oil has almost zero wear then doubling almost zero is still almost zero. Even so, if I had one of these engines, zero chance I'd be running a 20wt oil.
One or two UOAs with statistically insignificant differences in wear metals, you bet that means nothing, but we now have hundreds or thousands of UOAs showing a trend.
Maybe the difference is still statistically insignificant, if one oil has almost zero wear then doubling almost zero is still almost zero. Even so, if I had one of these engines, zero chance I'd be running a 20wt oil.
Similar threads
