PQIA Oil Analysis
- Thread starter qingcong
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Y_K
PQIA have been cutting corners on their tests recently, e.g. sulfur content for a lot of oils is missing.
I suspect one of the sponsors has 'asked' for sulphur to be removed from what's reported. I only say that because most metals in oil analysis today is done using ICP and if the machine is properly set up, you get sulphur for 'free'.
Sulfur was dropped because it was an expensive test that was not providing useful information. Sulfur comes from many sources, including base oils and several additives, and drawing conclusions from a total sulfur content was not scientific. In addition, virtually every oil tested passed the sulfur limits set forth in the API and ILSAC specifications.
The usefulness of sulfur testing was discussed with the full Advisory Board and the decision to drop it was made by PQIA's President. No sponsor requested the elimination of sulfur testing - it was strictly a bang-for-the-buck decision. I am not aware of any testing labs offering sulfur for free in their metals testing package.
Tom NJ
Interesting...
If you're paying for testing on a 'per element' basis then I can see why you might have an incentive to ditch sulphur, but usually you just ask for (and pay for) a complete elemental scan. You get every measurable element under the sun, even ones you have absolutely no use for. ICP quite happily measures a non-metallic element like Boron (which PQIA quotes) and has no problem measuring Sulphur to a high level of accuracy.
Even though the levels of Sulphur you see in US oils are far lower that they were 20 years ago (in the good old days of Group I base stocks) and pass the spec limits, the results are, to the trained eye, significant. Most of the Sulphur you see in US oils comes from ZDDP and is directly proportional to the level of Phosphorus in the oil. In the US, the difference between the total measured Sulphur and the ZDDP derived Sulphur is primarily Sulphur from other DI componentry (the base oil contribution is virtually nil) and this can be of interest.
The other thing I suspect I would see in the US is Sulphur contents that are extremely low but are marginally higher than the 0.3% max limits of some Low SAPs oils. Should this be the case, someone might plausibly ask, if The Yanks can live with slightly greater that 0.3%, why can't we do the same?
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Originally Posted By: Y_K
PQIA have been cutting corners on their tests recently, e.g. sulfur content for a lot of oils is missing.
I suspect one of the sponsors has 'asked' for sulphur to be removed from what's reported. I only say that because most metals in oil analysis today is done using ICP and if the machine is properly set up, you get sulphur for 'free'.
Sulfur was dropped because it was an expensive test that was not providing useful information. Sulfur comes from many sources, including base oils and several additives, and drawing conclusions from a total sulfur content was not scientific. In addition, virtually every oil tested passed the sulfur limits set forth in the API and ILSAC specifications.
The usefulness of sulfur testing was discussed with the full Advisory Board and the decision to drop it was made by PQIA's President. No sponsor requested the elimination of sulfur testing - it was strictly a bang-for-the-buck decision. I am not aware of any testing labs offering sulfur for free in their metals testing package.
Tom NJ
Interesting...
If you're paying for testing on a 'per element' basis then I can see why you might have an incentive to ditch sulphur, but usually you just ask for (and pay for) a complete elemental scan. You get every measurable element under the sun, even ones you have absolutely no use for. ICP quite happily measures a non-metallic element like Boron (which PQIA quotes) and has no problem measuring Sulphur to a high level of accuracy.
Even though the levels of Sulphur you see in US oils are far lower that they were 20 years ago (in the good old days of Group I base stocks) and pass the spec limits, the results are, to the trained eye, significant. Most of the Sulphur you see in US oils comes from ZDDP and is directly proportional to the level of Phosphorus in the oil. In the US, the difference between the total measured Sulphur and the ZDDP derived Sulphur is primarily Sulphur from other DI componentry (the base oil contribution is virtually nil) and this can be of interest.
The other thing I suspect I would see in the US is Sulphur contents that are extremely low but are marginally higher than the 0.3% max limits of some Low SAPs oils. Should this be the case, someone might plausibly ask, if The Yanks can live with slightly greater that 0.3%, why can't we do the same?
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Sulfur was dropped because it was an expensive test that was not providing useful information. Sulfur comes from many sources, including base oils and several additives, and drawing conclusions from a total sulfur content was not scientific.
woohoohoo.. not buying this, sorry. Usefulness of PQIA is diminishing then. Switching to organoleptic testing, some oils reek sulfur. Sulfur in oil, alcohol in fuel have a summit in combustion chamber.
Sulfur was dropped because it was an expensive test that was not providing useful information. Sulfur comes from many sources, including base oils and several additives, and drawing conclusions from a total sulfur content was not scientific.
woohoohoo.. not buying this, sorry. Usefulness of PQIA is diminishing then. Switching to organoleptic testing, some oils reek sulfur. Sulfur in oil, alcohol in fuel have a summit in combustion chamber.
PQIA's mission is often misunderstood on this board. Their purpose is not to determine or compare the performance properties of motor oils, or to provide free VOAs. They run a limited slate of tests selected to catch the most common types of deceitful practices, such as wrong viscosities, shorting of additives, sub quality base oils, deceptive labeling, etc. They cannot possibly run all of the specification tests, and are only looking to check that the selected test results are consistent with the labeled claims. ZDDP levels are checked by the Zn and P levels, and detergents by their associated metals, so sulfur is redundant.
Tom NJ
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Even though the levels of Sulphur you see in US oils are far lower that they were 20 years ago (in the good old days of Group I base stocks) and pass the spec limits, the results are, to the trained eye, significant.
Maybe, but the PQIA isn't there to determine anything beyond whether an oil is within grade and spec for API/ILSAC, as the case may be. Even for API/ILSAC, they don't run the gamut of tests. They're certainly not going to be distinguishing between an A5/B5 versus a generic ILSAC lube, at least beyond perhaps a generic couple pointers. So, while sulfur might be important to the trained eye, the PQIA is trying to ensure that oil is labeled correctly and makes fair claims and garbage stays off the shelf.
None of their target audience cares in the slightest that Royal Purple with Synerlec has far more sulfur than Fuchs Titan 0w-20.
Even though the levels of Sulphur you see in US oils are far lower that they were 20 years ago (in the good old days of Group I base stocks) and pass the spec limits, the results are, to the trained eye, significant.
Maybe, but the PQIA isn't there to determine anything beyond whether an oil is within grade and spec for API/ILSAC, as the case may be. Even for API/ILSAC, they don't run the gamut of tests. They're certainly not going to be distinguishing between an A5/B5 versus a generic ILSAC lube, at least beyond perhaps a generic couple pointers. So, while sulfur might be important to the trained eye, the PQIA is trying to ensure that oil is labeled correctly and makes fair claims and garbage stays off the shelf.
None of their target audience cares in the slightest that Royal Purple with Synerlec has far more sulfur than Fuchs Titan 0w-20.
Dead right, sorry, PQIA & API are completely different.
If it works as any kind of disclaimer, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet
If it works as any kind of disclaimer, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet
Well, at the very least, they're checking oils to see if they meet the most basic specifications, for the most part. They're concerned about what can't even meet basic SN!
- Status
