I've noticed this too. Not my favorite lab that's for sure.The report is junk. I'd ask them to rerun it on a recently calibrated ICP. The phosphorus is well outside of API limits and well outside any margin of error with ICP so either Mobil 1 is lying with their API starburst (highly unlikely) or Blackstone's machines aren't calibrated right which is the far more likely scenario as we've seen time and time again from Blackstone. The wear metals don't show an increase because they're likely 20-30% under reported.
Went 19k miles and didn't get TBN? Why not just use Polaris? It's cheaper and you get TBN and oxidation numbers, the two biggest factors in determining service life. It blows my mind how anybody can look at available oil analysis facilities, what they offer and their prices, and choose Blackstone.
There's 1.5% fuel dilution with the KV100 dropped down into more of a 0W-16 range. I'd say it's well past spent but Blackstone says "Try 21,000 miles next time."![]()
Still, I commend you for the long oci. Too many guys not pushing oci limits at all but want to post their run of the mill reports. No makeup oil either to me is just an added bonus, makes the report less skewed. Thank you.I've noticed this too. Not my favorite lab that's for sure.
Didn't we go through this before and it was determined that multiple labs were reporting the low Ph? Mobil 1 analyzed their own 0W20 and got lower Ph results than Blackstone did on the same sample. I thought you were part of that discussion.The report is junk. I'd ask them to rerun it on a recently calibrated ICP. The phosphorus is well outside of API limits and well outside any margin of error with ICP so either Mobil 1 is lying with their API starburst (highly unlikely) or Blackstone's machines aren't calibrated right
Didn't we go through this before and it was determined that multiple labs were reporting the low Ph? Mobil 1 analyzed their own 0W20 and got lower Ph results than Blackstone did on the same sample. I thought you were part of that discussion.
I'd ask them to rerun it on a recently calibrated ICP.
Those reports were within an ICP's margin of error. This one is not. Hence, I'd want a rerun. I don't see an under reported additive as something to brush off. Something is not right, and I personally would deem it a junk report until it's looked into further.
Here's the video:Those reports were within an ICP's margin of error. This one is not. Hence, I'd want a rerun. I don't see an under reported additive as something to brush off. Something is not right, and I personally would deem it a junk report until it's looked into further.