question about UOA's-

[berge]

shouldn't UOA's be indexed according to the oil capacity of the engine involved? If vehicle A and B have the exact same wear metals but one has a 4L oil capacity and the other has an 8L oil capacity, the one with more oil capacity really has had double the wear than the other engine because the wear metals were distributed throughout twice the volume of oil.

makes sense?

 

[Gene K]

Actually I would adjust on a fuel use per oil capacity basis. As matter of fact manufacture suggested OCI for heavy trucks are often set this way.

I would expect an engine that has a 10 Qt capacity and gets 18 mpg to have similar ppm counts as an engine that has a 5 Qt Sump and gets 36 mpg.

Gene

 

[berge]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gene K:
Actually I would adjust on a fuel use per oil capacity basis. As matter of fact manufacture suggested OCI for heavy trucks are often set this way.

I would expect an engine that has a 10 Qt capacity and gets 18 mpg to have similar ppm counts as an engine that has a 5 Qt Sump and gets 36 mpg.

Gene

---

even better.
why isn't this stuff calculated for re wear metals in UOA's?

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Here it is without the sugar coating. If all the pertinent variables of the UOAs posted here were included, categorized, and factored in, you’d have a spreadsheet the size of Kansas and it would probably be obvious that no scientific correlation of wear metals in healthy engines to anything can be accurately established with the UOAs posted here.