Single digit wear numbers

[tblt44]

I have noticed browsing supertech/kirkland 5w 30 and 10w 30 UOA on here many/most have low/single digit wear numbers.
I keep wanting to see low Mobil 1 & QSUD numbers as those have been my go to oils.
A few others like Magnatec often has low wear also.
I have tried kirkland once.
I may just switch over and stay with them. Cheap oil with great UOA numbers just not an extended drain oil.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I may just switch over and stay with them. Cheap oil with great UOA numbers just not an extended drain oil.

Do as you see fit but don't base a decision on an OA. Too many variables.

 

[kschachn]

And according to the oil analysis companies the UOA readings are about the engine and specific operating conditions, not the oil. This makes comparisons outside those confines to be meaningless.

But people keep trying. Makes you wonder if nearly all the oil choices made on UOA couldn’t just as well have been made with a bingo machine.

 

[bulwnkl]

No one on the board here has yet shown any publications which demonstrate a strong correlation between UOA numbers and wear. Maybe some day, but until then, UOA (alone) isn't showing you wear.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

No one on the board here has yet shown any publications which demonstrate a strong correlation between UOA numbers and wear. Maybe some day, but until then, UOA (alone) isn't showing you wear.

No one ever will because they don't exist. By the time OA picks up "wear" ( as defined as loss of mass, dimension or geometry of a component), it is already on the failure curve and would long have been detected by almost every other technology fit for that purpose

 

[PimTac]

Each analysis is just a snapshot. You need multiple analysis reports to see a trend. The single UOA will tell you that the oil did its job.

 

[bulwnkl]

No one on the board here has yet shown any publications which demonstrate a strong correlation between UOA numbers and wear. Maybe some day, but until then, UOA (alone) isn't showing you wear.

No one ever will because they don't exist. By the time OA picks up "wear" ( as defined as loss of mass, dimension or geometry of a component), it is already on the failure curve and would long have been detected by almost every other technology fit for that purpose

Exactly. UOA doesn't show wear, at least in the way the the vast majority of people here would like to believe.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Exactly. UOA doesn't show wear, at least in the way the the vast majority of people here would like to believe.

True, its much better for chemical contamination and even when "elevated levels" show, of wear metals theres the legitimate question of sampling integrity to determine if those levels are truly representative of the actual condition of the oil and machine.

If they are legitimate, it almost never tells you if its abnormal or not or where it is