Particulate Contamination Questions

[BISCUT]

Received free analysis from "TESTOIL" lab in Cleveland, OH. Figured price was right let me see how the old Camry is doing (1995 2.2 with 80k). Ran PYB for 5k with a Fram orange can of death.

PPM of lead was 28 all other numbers were pretty good (CU 5, AL 1, rest were 0 and plenty of active additives remaining.

Oxidation was 16 -- What does that mean?

Visc at 100C was 9.4

Particle count (ppm) averages listed as 16/15/11 mine returned 20/19/15

>4 micron was 8573
>6 micron was 3334
>50 was 11
> 100 was 0

I'm a rookie here so bear with me...

Am I correct to think that the OCOD failed?? Maybe went to bypass and didn't filter??

Car has been in my family since new. Mechancially sound. Oil changed regularly. Only issue would be from short trips for years. Thoughts???

 

[Clevy]

Short trips may explain the high lead and high oxidation. Other than that I can't really help. Guaranteed someone here will help you decipher the uoa.

 

[BISCUT]

Should clarify, I took over the car at 60k and have run a few short OCI's with PYB and just hit 82k. Previous history was short trips. From 60-80k its about 75% highway.

 

[Cup of Joe]

Relax Your fram filter worked just fine. The only filter catching 4 and 6 micron is a bypass filter. Do a search for particle count.

 

[dnewton3]

Knowing the ending Oxidation number is nearly worthless unless you know a starting number, so that you can calculate a delta shift.

As for the wear metals, the Pb could just be a spike; unless you have repeated numbers showing a trend it's only noteworthy in that you need to keep an eye on it; no action at this time.

The particle count has a HUGE spread in the parameters; to jump from 6um to 50um really does not tell you much. Depending upon what article you read and whom you believe, there is a general consensus that most damaging particles are perhaps in the 5-15um range. That is a bit "iffy" probably depending upon which lab and which equipment and which test is used, but it is a decent broad generalization. Particles in that size range of 5-15um are the most likely to fit into clearances that would allow them to be abrasize. Unfortunately, your particle count does not test in the most important range; you have data below, and way above that range. It's not worthless data, but it's not really telling, at least to me.

No - I don't think the OCOD failed here.

 

[Rand]

any chance you could post the whole uoa? i doubt iron was 0 for example.

 

[BISCUT]

I would psot but not sure how...

 

[BISCUT]

AGHR!! Misread -- Iron was 28 and lead was 0!

 

[Jim Allen]

Looks perfectly normal to me for the most part.

In your contamination analysis, it looks like you are missing some numbers. You should also have a listing for >15 um, or something similar.

The purported "average" ISO code of 16/15/11 seems very low to me. If it's an average, they should have listed "average at X-miles." Since you ran 5K, one assumes that is the average for 5K miles.

It looks to my like the system they used was the pore blockage type... which, I have learned, tends to read a little lower than the more accurate optical particle counts. My point is mainly that you can't compare the the two readings.

I have been reviewing a lot of engine oil ISO contamination analysis lately. A 20/19/15 on a bore blockage setup isn't too hot but it would be more reasonable on an optical test.

In reality, to make any sense of this, you need a few more similar tests.

What it boils down to is that you will see the highest number of particles in the range smaller than your filter's absolute filtration threshold... likely around 35-40 um. The filter fill catch (virtually) everything above that absolute ratings and a percentage of the smaller stuff, with the percentages decreasing with size. A 35um absolute filter may only catch 60% of the 20um particles and 20 % of the 5 um.

Like Newton said above, the general consensus is the the 5-15 are the most harmful particles but almost no filters are even moderately efficient at that level (you'd really would need bypass filtration to make that work) so one wonders why that is such an often quoted statistic.

So, in my long-winded way, while your particle count (more accurately termed "contamination analysis" if done by pore blockage) seem a bit high, the wear metals aren't, so you don't appear to have anything "dangeroo" involved. The vat majority of your contamination (extrapolating some of the missing info) is in the least harmful
PS- I see you use a P1 on some of your other cars. Why not on this one. I am firmly entrenched in the better filtration is better camp. The cost between a P1 and an orange can is not a heart stopper and you get vastly better filtration efficiency.

 

[BISCUT]

Thanks for the info Jim. I've been happy with with the P1 and Motorcraft that I've used on my other vehicles. I had a few of the OCOD's left over from a stockpile for my now deceased lawn tractor

Moving forward on this I changed the oil and went to use my stash of Super Tech synthetic and am using a Puralator white can.

I' going to figure out how to post the analysis. First time I used TESTOIL lab...they gave a "marginal" warning of the lubrucant condition. I'm new to reading these things and the contaimanant portion got my noodle all twisted.

 

[BISCUT]

Graph
Date 12/13/2012 Graph
Lab Number Reference 925507
Mach Cond / Lube Cond
Oil Change
Reviewed No
Spectroscopic Analysis (reported in ppm) ASTM 5185
Wear Metals
Iron 1 28
Copper 0 5
Lead 0 0
Aluminum 2 1
Tin 0 0
Nickel 0 0
Chromium 0 0
Titanium 0 0
Vanadium 0 0
Silver 0 0
Additives
Calcium 2561 2351
Magnesium 8 8
Phosphorus 640 769
Zinc 779 882
Barium 0 0
Molybdenum 1 260
Contaminants
Silicon 4 14
Boron 183 27
Sodium 0 22
Potassium 0 0
Physical Properties
Viscosity @ 100c 11.1 9.4
Base Number 6.04 2.48
FTIR - Indexing Number (JOAP Method)
Oxidation 4 16
Glycol 0 0
Soot 5 5
Fuel Dilution 0 0
Particle Count (reported in particles per ml) ISO 4406:99
ISO Code 16/15/11 20/19/15
> 4 Micron 510 8573
> 6 Micron 198 3334
> 14 Micron 15 254
> 50 Micron 0 11
> 100 Micron 0 0
Additional Tests
Fuel Dilution 0.00 0.70
Graph
Feedback History:

Add Feedback

 

[BISCUT]

I was able to cut and past it in. I apologize for any confusion. Maybe this will help you all help me get a better understanding.

 

[Donald]

Why did you get a "free" kit? I want one!!

 

[BISCUT]

Not sure why. They sent me an e-mail promotion offering it for 2 free tests. TESTOIL is their name. Not thrilled with the format but interesting to see how another CO, other than Blackstone does it.