Starting To Think This Is All

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
If their wear metal levels are that inaccurate, then they should report the range. I.e., 11+/- 5.

And, yes, I expect a $25 oil analysis to be accurate. If it's not, what good is it?



Really not trying to be a butt here. But....this is an excellent thread for new folks stepping into UOA's.

Define accurate? I would say for $25 each, this UOA is as accurate as any. Now I didn't say it's a good value or of value at all. I too would be mighty angry that the entry person messed up. You absolutely deserve to be made whole. Contact the lab and set them straight.

But going on about the numbers? With the exception of the Fe, none are out of place at all. I sound like a broken record, but it's like you won't acknowledge it. Again - which numbers are so bad?

As for the Fe, they do seem high, usually in the 3-4-5-6 range - but a good learning point is that all oil does have some native Fe and to get your panties in a wad over a UOA with 10 or 15 ppm of Fe is just nuts. I do think the lab should recalibrate and re-run, at the very least for not labeling the samples. It would be interesting to see how Fe changes.

Lastly - a VOA is good, and I would but it a notch about a single pass UOA. But really the trend is your friend. You need to do a VOA, then 3-4 MINIMUM, and statistically SEVEN (7) UOA's to properly trend an engine. Now, this is not taking anything away from the value of a UOA to spot an engine issue like a coolant leak or emission system problem or the like, but this is where I really agree with Doug Hillary. Single pass UOA's are just for recreational use only.
 
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy

What about oxidation of 36 and nitration of 12 for virgin ASM. Is this correct?


The higher the ester content the higher the value of Oxidation and Nitration. Virgin Red Line oil can have oxidation number above 50 and Nitration number above 20.
 
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
If their wear metal levels are that inaccurate, then they should report the range. I.e., 11+/- 5.

And, yes, I expect a $25 oil analysis to be accurate. If it's not, what good is it?



http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary

UOAs are a great tool in the Management of any machinery that uses liquid lubricants. Unfortunately, their real value is often misunderstood by those who contribute to BITOG.

Firstly, it is important to realize that you get what you pay for. The most common forms of UOA are limited in their scope. It is a case of if you pay more you get more. So my comments here relate primarily to the “simple” UOAs – the cornerstone of those appearing on BITOG

Secondly, it is easy to assume that by carrying out a UOA you will be able to determine how quickly the engine is wearing out. As well, if you change lubricant Brands you will be able to compare the wear metal uptake results and then make a balanced best lubricant choice to make your engine last longer.

Sadly that logic is seriously flawed.

Single pass (random) UOAs will provide some information regarding wear metals but unless you have a history of your engine’s performance up to around 1 million miles the results are simply that – UOA results! As an example a limit of 150ppm of Iron is a reality – after say 100k it means the lubricant should be changed and all is well. But what is the situation if you have 150ppm of Iron at 5k? Where would you look what would or could you do? So UOAs are really a diagnostic tool – one of many!

The other parts of the UOA Report will be much more valuable to you – it will tell you about the CONDITION of the lubricant and its suitability for further use. This will enable you to get the maximum safe use from the lubricant saving a valuable resource in the process.
 
I spoke to a data analyst at Polaris Labs. She indicated that the iron levels were too high for virgin oil. While they occasionally see iron as high as 5 ppm in virgin oil, anything above that in virgin oil needs retesting. She was also going to rerun the oxidation and nitration tests on sample #2 because they seemed out of line for virgin oil.

Also, she was going to sort out which sample was which oil and provide new reports. I'll post them when I get them.
 
^Sounds about like what anyone should expect.

Sample #2 of course would show higher nitration/oxidation for already stated reasons, since 'most' virgin oils don't show those levels as they aren't Amsoil or Red Line etc; obvious reason being the petro base vs the ester/PAO etc.

The Fe numbers did appear on the high side for a VOA, but at the "ppm" level it's not insanely off or anything REMOTELY close to that which is a 'dangerous' level. Though, I would feel weird myself if an oil had 15-20+ ppm of iron to start with.
 
The only thing I would use a UOA for is to detect coolant or excessive fuel. I have been doing 10K OCIs for many years, so I don't even care about TBN as it's never been an issue.
 
Ive used Polaris for years. From back when they were the contract lab for Shell (May still be). Ive been happy with them.

OldCowboy another thing I forgot to mention is that the iron reading can sometimes be caused be the anti-oxidants in the oil.
That would depend on the individual oil and Pablo would be better at judging that kind of trace on Amsoil Im sure.
 
If you can't distinguish those samples without their names next to them, what's the point of using Amsoil? Just use the cheapest of the three and be happy.

Things like that report are why UOAs are quite worthless. They're great for finding out if you have coolant contamination or a massive air filtration failure - beyond that, worthless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MM8
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top