Some clarification from Kristen at Blackstone

Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,801
Location
Pottstown, PA
I was frequently looking at the UOA's and seeing people look at the sample visc vs. the "should be" visc range and saying "hmmm...looks like it sheared to nearly a 20 weight ..when the oil was a 30 weight. However, when I converted to CST from SUS ..the sample was at a solid 30 weight in mid range. Anyway, I asked Kristen if the "should be" values were a composite like the UA. Here was her response: Hi Gary, Yes, you got it. We have standard "should be" values for generic weights of oil, that we apply to new types of oil that we see. If we see that one brand (Amsoil, for example, often falls outside of industry standards in their virgin oil viscosities) doesn't match what most other oils do in viscosity, we'll adjust from there. That said, our 20W viscosity range does seem to be a little high, so I'll adjust it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Sincerely, Kristin Huff FWIW [I dont know]
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,593
Location
Outside smalltown, IL
Why are they using their own averages anyway? Why not just stick to API specs and call it like it is? Brand or type shouldn't have anyhting to do with it either.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
3,735
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Both the reporting of the results and the interpretation of those results are an art, not a science unfortunately. After 10 plus years of doing oil analysis on many models of my cars I take the entire report with a grain (well several grains of salt) wild fluctuations in wear metals etc etc and have yet to lose an engine to failure due to oil related issues. UOA are almost useless (my conclusion now) unless you are looking for coolant leaks, catastrophic types of pending disasters. Other then that, IMO save your money for another oil change. The labs are no better are predicting how long your engine will last ( or your oil for that matter) then you are
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
Your points are well taken, but, though an individual UOA is of little value in making an absolute detrmination of wear, it's the <i>trend</i> which can be observed over multiple reports that can help us spot problem areas developing.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
7,409
Location
Austin, TX
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo: I ask for just a little proof. Not sure the meaning of THAT emoticon.
Relax Pabs, that's a dog with it's ears perked up...as in it just heard a strange but interesting sound in the distance(BlackStone's comment). [Big Grin]
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
632
Location
Idaho
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
(Amsoil, for example, often falls outside of industry standards in their virgin oil viscosities)
Really?

It's good that Amsoil falls outside the industry standard...they make the standards others follow:) Chill Pablo....where is my re-fridge icon:)
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
7,409
Location
Austin, TX
quote:
Originally posted by tpitcher: Looks like a happy old Man with a bad Flat top !
Then I used the correct icon. [Big Grin]
 

Gary Allan

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,801
Location
Pottstown, PA
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
(Amsoil, for example, often falls outside of industry standards in their virgin oil viscosities)
Really?

If she had said that Amsoil often falls outside of industry standard in UOA ..then I don't think you would be suprised. That is maybe what she meant. [I dont know] Anyway, the main point of my post was to get everyone to not assume that any given oil sheared to (near) out of spec just because it's sitting on the bottom end of the "should be" span.
 
Top