One of the highly respected laboratories doing UOAs has a list of wear values that I found interesting. The site lists two sets of values for different levels of wear. The first is called a "WATCH VALUE" and the second is called a "WARNING VALUE" Fe = 50 & 100, Cu = 25 & 50, Pb = 25 & 40, Cr = 15 & 30. Flahpoint warning is 375 F or lower. Repeatedly we see people who submit their UOAs and are disturbed over Fe numbers of 15 or that it went from 7 to 11 on successive UOAs. The same for CU and lead values. I guess it is a good mental exercise and fun to review and graph and ponder the whys but, other than that it is a useless endeavor. Long term treads are the most value it appears and then only as wear values approach some reasonable level. just my observations. Ed
Over reacting to UOAs
- Thread starter Eddie
- Start date
- Status
We all know this. But everyone has to have a hobby.
Been saying this for years now. It becomes a hobby for many people. Something to obsess over. I'm guilty of it. Oils don't have wear control issues.
Take M1 for example. Here is what a GM engineer said about M1 and all the internet rumors that exist around it:
Quote:
Mobil 1 always has been and is an excellent product. All things considered i do not think you can buy a better oil for all round passenger car use. Some of the boutique oils might have "better" specs in one area or another but we do a tremendous amount of product testing with Mobil 1 and it always performs well. It is cerainly my choice when I need a synthetic oil product for some application.
The internet breeds a lot of self proclaimed experts that are mostly good at cutting and pasting info from other sources. Anything from the internet is always best taken with a large grain of salt....especially anything about oil....LOL. I think Mobil 1 is pretty much considered the gold standard for oils so there is always someone anxious to try and knock it off to make them selves look better.
Take M1 for example. Here is what a GM engineer said about M1 and all the internet rumors that exist around it:
Quote:
Mobil 1 always has been and is an excellent product. All things considered i do not think you can buy a better oil for all round passenger car use. Some of the boutique oils might have "better" specs in one area or another but we do a tremendous amount of product testing with Mobil 1 and it always performs well. It is cerainly my choice when I need a synthetic oil product for some application.
The internet breeds a lot of self proclaimed experts that are mostly good at cutting and pasting info from other sources. Anything from the internet is always best taken with a large grain of salt....especially anything about oil....LOL. I think Mobil 1 is pretty much considered the gold standard for oils so there is always someone anxious to try and knock it off to make them selves look better.
Lower is better.
If the last UOA showed 0 and the next one goes up in metals that are not good (like Tin), I'm concerned.
Most of the time people think that UOAs are useless or numbers don't mean anything are trying to defend their use of a brand of oil or prevent bad PR.
To each their own!
Bill
If the last UOA showed 0 and the next one goes up in metals that are not good (like Tin), I'm concerned.
Most of the time people think that UOAs are useless or numbers don't mean anything are trying to defend their use of a brand of oil or prevent bad PR.
To each their own!
Bill
Obsessing thats all you can say.
One person has a 5.3 chevy gets low teens on fe everytime and changes oil at 3k. Other person changes oil at 6-9k with the exact same motor and oil and has mid to high teens on fe wear.
Well everyone would compare the two and say the second person has better wear ppm per mile. But the second guy drives 500 miles a day on the highway and the first guy hauls landscape equipment throughout town everyday. Thats why I hate to see comments on your motor this and mine does this when everyone has different useage rates.
The same thing with different oils alike. One oil gave me this # on wear and then I ran this oil and my wear went up. I ran oil A 5000 miles and had 15ppm fe wear. I then ran oil b 5000 miles and had 26ppm wear. Oil B sucks, its abnormally wearing my engine. Then you find out oil b suffered extreme cold through winter and lots of short tripping without reaching operating temp.
My 2 cents, I get sick of hearing all the obsession about a variation in ppm, especially since we all know the labs aren't that precise in calculations as it is.
One person has a 5.3 chevy gets low teens on fe everytime and changes oil at 3k. Other person changes oil at 6-9k with the exact same motor and oil and has mid to high teens on fe wear.
Well everyone would compare the two and say the second person has better wear ppm per mile. But the second guy drives 500 miles a day on the highway and the first guy hauls landscape equipment throughout town everyday. Thats why I hate to see comments on your motor this and mine does this when everyone has different useage rates.
The same thing with different oils alike. One oil gave me this # on wear and then I ran this oil and my wear went up. I ran oil A 5000 miles and had 15ppm fe wear. I then ran oil b 5000 miles and had 26ppm wear. Oil B sucks, its abnormally wearing my engine. Then you find out oil b suffered extreme cold through winter and lots of short tripping without reaching operating temp.
My 2 cents, I get sick of hearing all the obsession about a variation in ppm, especially since we all know the labs aren't that precise in calculations as it is.
Quote:
My 2 cents, I get sick of hearing all the obsession about a variation in ppm, especially since we all know the labs aren't that precise in calculations as it is.
Not only that, but deposit and sludge is not picked up thru oil analysis. Indications of potential sludge can be seen, but it won't be reflected thru wear metals in most cases.
My 2 cents, I get sick of hearing all the obsession about a variation in ppm, especially since we all know the labs aren't that precise in calculations as it is.
Not only that, but deposit and sludge is not picked up thru oil analysis. Indications of potential sludge can be seen, but it won't be reflected thru wear metals in most cases.
Good point buster. I hadn't even thought of that scenario. Ed
Originally Posted By: Eddie
Good point buster. I hadn't even thought of that scenario. Ed
This is why in a turbo, M1 or equivelent (which there aren't many) is highly recommened. Just look at Honda's testing and how poorly all the other brands did.
Good point buster. I hadn't even thought of that scenario. Ed
This is why in a turbo, M1 or equivelent (which there aren't many) is highly recommened. Just look at Honda's testing and how poorly all the other brands did.
Hi,
over many years I have had numerous "over reactions" from the Technicians in even the Oil Companies own Labs. This often results from formulation changes to the keyed in "warning" values (not being updated) and etc. - viscosity being but one area
This falsity can cause untold dramas in the field when Service Managers get a "warning" to change the oil, check for air induction leaks and the like. This results in costly equipment being stood down, valuable labour being used to find non existent "faults" and the like
Random single pass UOAs are mostly "interesting" - at the best they MAY pick up an engine's "condition" abnormality
Intelligent "Trending" is the trick and using one lubricant that can be clearly indentified is most important IMHO
Blackstone's Labs comments are often quite humerous - at the worst they can be alarming to the unpracticed reader
over many years I have had numerous "over reactions" from the Technicians in even the Oil Companies own Labs. This often results from formulation changes to the keyed in "warning" values (not being updated) and etc. - viscosity being but one area
This falsity can cause untold dramas in the field when Service Managers get a "warning" to change the oil, check for air induction leaks and the like. This results in costly equipment being stood down, valuable labour being used to find non existent "faults" and the like
Random single pass UOAs are mostly "interesting" - at the best they MAY pick up an engine's "condition" abnormality
Intelligent "Trending" is the trick and using one lubricant that can be clearly indentified is most important IMHO
Blackstone's Labs comments are often quite humerous - at the worst they can be alarming to the unpracticed reader
Last edited:
In an SAE paper written by Chrysler, "Expediting Engine Development Through Near Time Oil Analysis", a real time oil analysis program was instituted for engine dyno testing. Their key criteria for terminating engine testing was rising wear metal rates. What is interesting is looking at their conclusions and the curves that they show. For the racing engine, they terminated the test with changes in ppm Al wear that would be argued on BITOG (7 ppm to 23 ppm). However, they do have good trending to support this, by sampling oil at a regular basis without changing.
Quote:
2.0L Touring Car Racing Engine Example - A sharp increase in aluminum concentration was noticed in the oil from two race prepared engines. There was no other indication of problems. Testing of the engines was terminated. Tear down identified a cam bearing failure in motor A and a cracked rocker arm post in motor C as the sources of the aluminum. Analysis of the oil avoided catastrophic failures. The motor B test was terminated as planned.
Quote:
Early in the evaluation phase of the oil analysis testing at Chrysler Jeep and Truck Engineering, a specific test stands out both as a failure analysis example and a procedural example. Oil samples were gathered on a regular basis from a V8 engine. The engine test continued to run into the weekend. Samples taken late Friday afternoon were set-aside until the beginning of the next week when a technician was available to run the analysis. In the interim the engine failed. At both the eight and ten hour test samples, the indicators suggested that a close watch or additional inspection was necessary since both iron and aluminum were rising sharply. At the twelve hour point, test termination was definitely indicated. This incident lead to procedures being developed which maintained timely evaluation of oil analysis data.
The engine tear dwon revealed scuffed pistons in all cylinders, worn connecting rod bearings and a failed connecting rod big end with bearing. The initial evaluation suggested that piston scuffing generated increased bearing load, which resulted in the bearing and rod failures. The OSA data was then added to the investigation of the root cause. Examination of wear metal concentration in the oil showed beginning at six hours there was a steady increase in the concentration of iron in the oil. Between ten and twelve hours the concentration of aluminum doubled. These trends continued until fourteen hours when the test was terminated catastrophically. The conclusion after examining both the oil data and the engine components was the two failure modes were initially unrelated. The bearings failed due to loss of oil supply, not because of the scuffed pistons. Debris from the failed bearings aggravated the piston scuffing but was not the initial source. The steady growth in iron and aluminum levels from six to ten hours is credited to the piston scuffing. The large jump in aluminum concentration after ten hours was caused by debris from the failing connecting rod bearing aggravating the scuffing in two cylinders adjacent the failed connecting rod. It was subsequently found that the piston fit was out of tolerance and that machining errors had lead to the oil supply problems. Compounding the difficulty in evaluating the data was that the bearings were of high aluminum content.
Quote:
2.0L Touring Car Racing Engine Example - A sharp increase in aluminum concentration was noticed in the oil from two race prepared engines. There was no other indication of problems. Testing of the engines was terminated. Tear down identified a cam bearing failure in motor A and a cracked rocker arm post in motor C as the sources of the aluminum. Analysis of the oil avoided catastrophic failures. The motor B test was terminated as planned.
Quote:
Early in the evaluation phase of the oil analysis testing at Chrysler Jeep and Truck Engineering, a specific test stands out both as a failure analysis example and a procedural example. Oil samples were gathered on a regular basis from a V8 engine. The engine test continued to run into the weekend. Samples taken late Friday afternoon were set-aside until the beginning of the next week when a technician was available to run the analysis. In the interim the engine failed. At both the eight and ten hour test samples, the indicators suggested that a close watch or additional inspection was necessary since both iron and aluminum were rising sharply. At the twelve hour point, test termination was definitely indicated. This incident lead to procedures being developed which maintained timely evaluation of oil analysis data.
The engine tear dwon revealed scuffed pistons in all cylinders, worn connecting rod bearings and a failed connecting rod big end with bearing. The initial evaluation suggested that piston scuffing generated increased bearing load, which resulted in the bearing and rod failures. The OSA data was then added to the investigation of the root cause. Examination of wear metal concentration in the oil showed beginning at six hours there was a steady increase in the concentration of iron in the oil. Between ten and twelve hours the concentration of aluminum doubled. These trends continued until fourteen hours when the test was terminated catastrophically. The conclusion after examining both the oil data and the engine components was the two failure modes were initially unrelated. The bearings failed due to loss of oil supply, not because of the scuffed pistons. Debris from the failed bearings aggravated the piston scuffing but was not the initial source. The steady growth in iron and aluminum levels from six to ten hours is credited to the piston scuffing. The large jump in aluminum concentration after ten hours was caused by debris from the failing connecting rod bearing aggravating the scuffing in two cylinders adjacent the failed connecting rod. It was subsequently found that the piston fit was out of tolerance and that machining errors had lead to the oil supply problems. Compounding the difficulty in evaluating the data was that the bearings were of high aluminum content.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
........ Tear down identified a cam bearing failure in motor A and a cracked rocker arm post in motor C as the sources of the aluminum. Analysis of the oil avoided catastrophic failures. The motor B test was terminated as planned..............
I find it interesting that a crack in the rocker arm post showed up as elevated aluminum.
There have been a few Subaru STI 2.5L turbo motors that have experienced cracking of the oil pickup tube (steel), with predictable catastrophic results. I am wondering if this would show up in an UOA as elevated iron or nickel.
........ Tear down identified a cam bearing failure in motor A and a cracked rocker arm post in motor C as the sources of the aluminum. Analysis of the oil avoided catastrophic failures. The motor B test was terminated as planned..............
I find it interesting that a crack in the rocker arm post showed up as elevated aluminum.
There have been a few Subaru STI 2.5L turbo motors that have experienced cracking of the oil pickup tube (steel), with predictable catastrophic results. I am wondering if this would show up in an UOA as elevated iron or nickel.
RI, thx. I think it's definitely useful and could be very accurate. I've also read things like this which refute the accuracy of it.
Quote:
Where the issue is relates to the thread title: I contend that UOA is not sufficiently rigorous to decide which oil is better. It could tell the user of problems re the engine, and in high counts give some warning of wear from some parts but not necessarily all. Rings wear through attrition, but cams through "plucking" of hard coat due to failure of lube at start up etc, giving larger particles. There are confounding issues which have been highlighted several times: the spectrum of particle sizes is insufficient; the particle count may understate wear; the whole size range needs to be examined to pick out particles larger than UOA can see, e.g. flakes from a cam. In summary, I do not believe that UOA is the right tool for making judgements between different engines, or different oils, or different oils in different engines. But, I may be corrected by the oil analysis companies if they say that UOA is a tool that can be relied upon to decide the efficacy of differing oils.
Quote:
You will find tha Mobil 1 will clean your system and the detergent/dispersant system will hold more particles in suspension (ie your normal oil may be dropping out wear metals in sludge at the bottom of the sump which is not seen in your oil sample). You should also remember that the wear metal analysis done by most UOA labs is based on ICP and the wear metal particles reported are less than 10 microns in size. Some of the iron you are seeing is in the form of metal soaps which will be more soluble in a good detergent/dispersant package.
Mobil did some engine tests switching from a mineral oil to Mobil 1 and saw increased wear metals in UOA. Engine strip down actually showed less wear in comparison to the mineral based engines.
Quote:
Where the issue is relates to the thread title: I contend that UOA is not sufficiently rigorous to decide which oil is better. It could tell the user of problems re the engine, and in high counts give some warning of wear from some parts but not necessarily all. Rings wear through attrition, but cams through "plucking" of hard coat due to failure of lube at start up etc, giving larger particles. There are confounding issues which have been highlighted several times: the spectrum of particle sizes is insufficient; the particle count may understate wear; the whole size range needs to be examined to pick out particles larger than UOA can see, e.g. flakes from a cam. In summary, I do not believe that UOA is the right tool for making judgements between different engines, or different oils, or different oils in different engines. But, I may be corrected by the oil analysis companies if they say that UOA is a tool that can be relied upon to decide the efficacy of differing oils.
Quote:
You will find tha Mobil 1 will clean your system and the detergent/dispersant system will hold more particles in suspension (ie your normal oil may be dropping out wear metals in sludge at the bottom of the sump which is not seen in your oil sample). You should also remember that the wear metal analysis done by most UOA labs is based on ICP and the wear metal particles reported are less than 10 microns in size. Some of the iron you are seeing is in the form of metal soaps which will be more soluble in a good detergent/dispersant package.
Mobil did some engine tests switching from a mineral oil to Mobil 1 and saw increased wear metals in UOA. Engine strip down actually showed less wear in comparison to the mineral based engines.
Quote:
ie your normal oil may be dropping out wear metals in sludge at the bottom of the sump which is not seen in your oil sample
Now we know why my UOAs have such low wear metals!
All the real wear metals are in the sludge in the pan!
ie your normal oil may be dropping out wear metals in sludge at the bottom of the sump which is not seen in your oil sample
Now we know why my UOAs have such low wear metals!
All the real wear metals are in the sludge in the pan!
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Quote:
ie your normal oil may be dropping out wear metals in sludge at the bottom of the sump which is not seen in your oil sample
Now we know why my UOAs have such low wear metals!
All the real wear metals are in the sludge in the pan!
Yeah that is a bunch of bull.
Quote:
ie your normal oil may be dropping out wear metals in sludge at the bottom of the sump which is not seen in your oil sample
Now we know why my UOAs have such low wear metals!
All the real wear metals are in the sludge in the pan!
Yeah that is a bunch of bull.
A lower number does not always mean there is lower wear for that element. This has been discussed extensively, but not often enough.
This topic has some merit. When you think about it, there are some similarities to how each of us probably react to our own bloodwork analysis too. Here are some analogies:
Good lab report (everything in the normal range)
-Wow! This blood must be the best on the market right now. I think I'll insist that everyone use this brand and viscosity!
Bad lab report (lots of things out of whack)
-Bummer! I better throw some drugs (solvents/cleaner additives) at it and see what happens. I hope I can handle the side affects.
-Double bummer! Maybe I'll have to change my lifestyle (driving and maintenance habits). Tomorrow I'll quit smoking, drinking, change my diet and start exercising. Maybe I'll start taking vitamins, minerals, fish oil, and EDTA chelation (think Auto-Rx and ZDDP boost) too!
-Triple bummer! I think I need a blood transfusion (think OCI). Yea, but can I use synthetic this time? Should I go with a cheap filter? Will it last longer and make me feel better. My body has been pretty noisy lately too. I heard it makes things quieter. That would make my wife happier too!
Anyways, it's all fun and entertaining wrt to how we look at UOA's. Keep up the great work Bitoger's, and don't change a thing!
Good lab report (everything in the normal range)
-Wow! This blood must be the best on the market right now. I think I'll insist that everyone use this brand and viscosity!
Bad lab report (lots of things out of whack)
-Bummer! I better throw some drugs (solvents/cleaner additives) at it and see what happens. I hope I can handle the side affects.
-Double bummer! Maybe I'll have to change my lifestyle (driving and maintenance habits). Tomorrow I'll quit smoking, drinking, change my diet and start exercising. Maybe I'll start taking vitamins, minerals, fish oil, and EDTA chelation (think Auto-Rx and ZDDP boost) too!
-Triple bummer! I think I need a blood transfusion (think OCI). Yea, but can I use synthetic this time? Should I go with a cheap filter? Will it last longer and make me feel better. My body has been pretty noisy lately too. I heard it makes things quieter. That would make my wife happier too!
Anyways, it's all fun and entertaining wrt to how we look at UOA's. Keep up the great work Bitoger's, and don't change a thing!
- Status
Similar threads
