No make up oil, virtually all city driving. My dad had a bad report on the same oil with 5,876 miles/1 year during his last UOA, with a TBN of 1.3 among other things. Car has about 80,000 miles on it now. The first column is from his previous UOA, the second column is the results he just got back.
Code:
aluminum 28 -- 10
chromium 2 -- 1
iron 71 -- 26
copper 27 -- 24
lead 1 -- 1
tin 6 -- 4
molybdenum 87 -- 107
nickel 1 -- 0
manganese 1 -- 1
silver 0 -- 0
titanium 0 -- 0
potassium 2 -- 0
boron 51 -- 71
silicon 9 -- 8
sodium 8 -- 4
calcium 2184 -- 2491
magnesium 12 -- 11
phosphorus 588 -- 735
zinc 788 -- 837
barium 0 -- 0
SUS visc. 56.1 -- 60.4
cSt visc. 9.10 -- 10.32
flashpoint 365 -- 385
fuel TR --
antifreeze 0.0 -- 0.0
water 0.0 -- 0.0
insolubles 0.2 -- 0.2
TBN 1.3 -- 3.4
Comments were :
"Wear metals read lower this time around, which is certainly a nice thing to see. That said, we're not sure whether an actual improvement in how the engine is wearing or just less metal accumulation due to the shorter oil change is to thank for the improvements. We suggest another oil run of this length next time to see how metals look. That'll give us an apples-to-apples comparison. In the meantime, the TBN looked fine at 3.4 and the oil itself was still free of any contaminant that might have been causing wear. The viscosity was fine. Check back to monitor."
TBN of 3.4 seems awful low to me, from a run of merely 3,000 miles and 6 months on extended performance. What do you think?
Link to first UOA
Code:
aluminum 28 -- 10
chromium 2 -- 1
iron 71 -- 26
copper 27 -- 24
lead 1 -- 1
tin 6 -- 4
molybdenum 87 -- 107
nickel 1 -- 0
manganese 1 -- 1
silver 0 -- 0
titanium 0 -- 0
potassium 2 -- 0
boron 51 -- 71
silicon 9 -- 8
sodium 8 -- 4
calcium 2184 -- 2491
magnesium 12 -- 11
phosphorus 588 -- 735
zinc 788 -- 837
barium 0 -- 0
SUS visc. 56.1 -- 60.4
cSt visc. 9.10 -- 10.32
flashpoint 365 -- 385
fuel TR --
antifreeze 0.0 -- 0.0
water 0.0 -- 0.0
insolubles 0.2 -- 0.2
TBN 1.3 -- 3.4
Comments were :
"Wear metals read lower this time around, which is certainly a nice thing to see. That said, we're not sure whether an actual improvement in how the engine is wearing or just less metal accumulation due to the shorter oil change is to thank for the improvements. We suggest another oil run of this length next time to see how metals look. That'll give us an apples-to-apples comparison. In the meantime, the TBN looked fine at 3.4 and the oil itself was still free of any contaminant that might have been causing wear. The viscosity was fine. Check back to monitor."
TBN of 3.4 seems awful low to me, from a run of merely 3,000 miles and 6 months on extended performance. What do you think?
Link to first UOA
Last edited by a moderator: