I need to send off a UOA of Molasses to see how it compares. Data..
Rotella T4 15w40 + Lucas Oil Stabilizer, Fram TG Filter, ~2000 mile OCI in a 1993 Corvette
- Thread starter Robvette
- Start date
I used my sixth sense.
Common sense.
It's dirt, friend.
How unlikely is it that a compromised airbox juncture was not at fault for allowing unfiltered air into the engine, and thereby showing up in the UOA. It could certainly be something else, but how likely is that to be true?
You hit the O in BITOG very well, with your post, as you usually do.
Last edited:
You guys with that sixth sense are amazing.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
This is bat country.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 298
@KEVINK0000 my theory (and this is just a theory) is that great filtration (Fram TG 20 micron) paired with a relatively thick oil film (18.1cSt) protected the metals.
"Any abrasive particles equal to or larger than the oil film thickness will cause wear."
Of course one UOA is just an anecdotal data point. A criticism of Lucas is that it only increases viscosity. Sometimes, maybe, increasing viscosity is all that's needed to prevent certain types of wear.
For sure just opting for a thicker oil from the start may be a better option. For example - this sample T4 + Lucas = 18.1cSt. This oil was changed and the car was refilled with M1 15w50 which is 18.0cSt.
Point being that while Lucas may not be a recommended or ideal wear and oil consumption reduction strategy - is doesn't always not work.
i am always amazed by the data boyz.
How much data do you need before your mind begins to work?
Ignoring a question because it is largely irrelevant is Ok with me. Control Sample? Ha.
It’s easy to find the viscosity of Rotella, go look for it. I don’t have to. A 40 weight became a 50 weight. It’s plain to see.
High school science? I hope that was tongue in cheek.
Robvette’s theory and the image he posted is likely correct. If you don’t know this already, then you should look to your own knowledge deficit, before posting memes.
Yes you actually can get useful info from a $30 UOA.
We just saw some and discussed it.
How much data do you need before your mind begins to work?
Ignoring a question because it is largely irrelevant is Ok with me. Control Sample? Ha.
It’s easy to find the viscosity of Rotella, go look for it. I don’t have to. A 40 weight became a 50 weight. It’s plain to see.
High school science? I hope that was tongue in cheek.
Robvette’s theory and the image he posted is likely correct. If you don’t know this already, then you should look to your own knowledge deficit, before posting memes.
Yes you actually can get useful info from a $30 UOA.
We just saw some and discussed it.
Not a "data boy" but at some point, folks that do a single UOA and say "looks great, this oil works fantastic!" has to be counted with what UOA actually can and can't tell you which is typically from multiple UOAs to get a baseline for the engine and develop trends. Just about any oil will look the same in UOA w/r to wear metals. I've done dozens posted in this sub including trend graphs and those include several different oils and additives....you can't tell which is which or which did "better" by looking at that UOAs/graph....you can tell when I added new hardware or had a mechanical failure by the up-tick in iron/aluminum. That's it.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 298
@TiGeo so when someone is clearly *not* overstating the value of single UOA, and qualifies their theory …
I believe you have stated multiple times in multiple threads about how good the UOA looked with that oil and Lucas.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 298
It is a good UOA. Objectively.
Generally, we discuss what could be contributing factors of bad (and good) UOAs.
For 2000 miles and 40 silicon, thats playing with fire.
I had a great time reading up on Lucas Oil stablizer last night and how it dilutes the existing add pack and does absolutely not much else.
dnewton3
Staff member
I am a "data boy". I did 10 years as a Statistical Process Quality Control engineer, specializing in manufacturing quality processes, DOEs, supervision of the personnel and equipment in our lab facilities, etc.
Most of you have no idea how to interpret a UOA; they are merely toys to most of you. To truly be able to understand ANY analysis, for the purpose of comparing/contrasting, you have to:
- establish baseline data
- understand standard deviation
- be able to recognize data trends
- be able to identify errant "flyer" data points, relative to known causes
- understand how macro data and micro data compliment each other, but cannot be substituted for each other
- realize that without correlation there can be no causation, but also know that correlation should never be confused with causation
UOAs are tools; they have benefits and limitations just as with any tool. They are incredibly useful in the right hands, and absolutely abused in the wrong hands. UOAs are not flawless; they are not perfect. They do not see all; they only see a portion. They see content, but not size, whereas PCs see size, but not content. UOAs are one of the most cost effective means of tracking both lube and equipment performance, but ONLY when used in a properly managed maintenance program by well-trained people who know what they are doing.
The average Joe on BITOG is clueless when it comes to UOAs. I stand by that firmly.
Though this is older now, it is by no means outdated.
Most of you have no idea how to interpret a UOA; they are merely toys to most of you. To truly be able to understand ANY analysis, for the purpose of comparing/contrasting, you have to:
- establish baseline data
- understand standard deviation
- be able to recognize data trends
- be able to identify errant "flyer" data points, relative to known causes
- understand how macro data and micro data compliment each other, but cannot be substituted for each other
- realize that without correlation there can be no causation, but also know that correlation should never be confused with causation
UOAs are tools; they have benefits and limitations just as with any tool. They are incredibly useful in the right hands, and absolutely abused in the wrong hands. UOAs are not flawless; they are not perfect. They do not see all; they only see a portion. They see content, but not size, whereas PCs see size, but not content. UOAs are one of the most cost effective means of tracking both lube and equipment performance, but ONLY when used in a properly managed maintenance program by well-trained people who know what they are doing.
The average Joe on BITOG is clueless when it comes to UOAs. I stand by that firmly.
Though this is older now, it is by no means outdated.
Used Oil Analysis: How to decide what is normal - Bob is the Oil Guy
Reviewing UOA Data Used oil analyses (UOAs) are tools. And like most tools, they can either be properly used or misused, depending upon the application, the user, the surrounding conditions, etc.= There are already many good articles and publications in existence that tell us how to interpret...
bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 298
Agreed! In the 1st post I noted the deformity in the airbox and shared a video (also below) on how I’ve hopefully resolved that issue. Also I switched from a K&N filter to a OEM.
In addition to all the ways @dnewton3 explained that trends and baselines are important - when you see elevated Si on a single UOA - looking around to see if unfiltered air may be reaching the engine makes sense. It’ll be interesting to see if Si comes down in the next UOA.
And one can be blinded by data, and the pursuit of it.
Which also happens frequently here, time and time again.
Which also happens frequently here, time and time again.
Similar threads
- Locked