Super Tech ST3600 oil analysis, with clicker valve type by-pass

[Ugly3]

Used Oil Analysis:

Spectrometry
A spectrometer is an instrument with which one can measure the quantities and types of metallic elements in a sample of oil. The operating principle is as follows. A diluted oil sample is pulverised by an inert gas to form an aerosol, which is magnetically induced to form a plasma at a temperature of about 9000°C. As a result of this high temperature the metal ions take on energy, and release new energy in the form of photons. In this way, a spectrum with different wavelengths is created for each metallic element. The intensities of the emissions are measurable for each such element by virtue of its very specific wavelength, calculated in number of ppm (parts per million). A special spectrometer can detect the very small metal particles in suspension in the oil, i.e. with a size between 0 and 3 microns.

Those small particles are a good indication of general wear. The human eye can detect particles of a size starting from 50 microns, which allows them to be visualized using more conventional means. Complementary analysis of such larger particles can be done by spectrometry, by ferrography or by optical or electronic microscopy.

 

[John W. Colby]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Filter guy - OTOH..if the pleats had ripped or torn or there be some problem with the element or the by-pass opening up to much..the wear count would go up ( way up), not down.

There would be no change in the wear count. The particle size being reported is too small for any filter to remove. You would get essentially the same UOA report if you had no filter installed. You must do a particle count to see the effectivness of an oil filter.

---

Really?

What size particles do you think the oil filter removes?

What size particles do you think the oil analysis counts?

---

For a paper on particle size measurements:

http://www.baldwinfilters.com/engineer/95_11.html

An example from a member post:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001726#000003

"I have spoken to four different filter companies about one of our applications. (Land Rover Defender with a 300Tdi engine)

They were;

Baldwin (B74) media area 290.3 sq.in. Beta 2 rating=22 micron
Donaldson (P550318) media area 258 sq. in. Beta 2 rating=25 micron
GUD-Ryco (Z89) media area ? Beta 2 rating=30-36 micron.
Mann-Hummel (W930/20) media area 354.5 sq. in. Beta 2 rating=18 micron

They were all extremely obliging with their data, but as you can see, a full flow filter doesn't really filter very well..."

Other links I found:
http://www.carjunky.com/news/motor_oil/mom7.shtml
http://www.filtakleen-usa.com/filtakleen/gmchart.htm
http://www.natrib.com/appnotes/app19.htm
http://www.maintenanceresources.com/ReferenceLibrary/OilAnalysis/oa-pm.htm

 

[Filter guy]

Changed my air filter today, now have a STP one in there. No apparent problems with any of the connections or hoses. Although I did tighten one clamp. It wasn't "loose" but I did give it a couple extra turns of the screwdriver. The other clamp was tight.
-------------------

So are you saying oil analysis is moot when it comes to analysing the relationship of the filter?

So If I removed the filter, are you saying that the oil analysis wouldn't show much different in wear metals?

I'm not concerned with the published "ratings" of various medias by different companies. When I worked at Champ they had their own analysis lab. ( they have since closed it and the oil analysis are sent to the lab in Carolina).

The lab techs would call those with severe readings.

What oil analysis does is take a snap shot of the condition of the oil at the time of the sample. Then you compare a sample to another. It is important to sample with every oil change to see and compare result to result.

I guarantee you that if a filter has ripped or torn media the wear metals go up. Each filter regardless of what it is rated at do remove particles in the 1-5 micron range. It is not their primary function because automotive engine companies want the filtration in the 5-25 micron range.


Medias have been getting more efficient as time has gone on. What was the "best" media 10 years ago is now more the standard media used. Due to the addition of synthetic fibers in the medias, there has been a "war" between filters companies as annually they keep offering better and better media. Hence the 98-99% single pass efficiencies that are now being published. The beta ratio's are also getting better and better. Which also means the filtration of the 1-5 micron size particles are getting better and better.

In the "old" days the wear numbers were higher. Now they've gone down. If you compare an oil analysis from 10 years ago to one today, you would see the net effect of the changes in media.

So when one says that the media has no cause or relationship to the particle size that is used during the actual testing of the oil, I have seen otherwise.

 

[John W. Colby]

Filter Guy, you're blowing smoke here. All that stuff you just said is just opinion, unless you can supply numbers which is what you seem to be so all about. If you have such an in with these filter companies, why don't you get the numbers. I am not finding published specs on the Web. If the filters were so ****ed good you think they wouldn't be bragging about them?

Everything I'm reading says that if the full flow filters really did effectively filter down to 5 microns (and I don't see any indications that they do), they would quickly clog up. The better the filtration, the more often the filter needs changing.

You're the "show me the numbers" guy, so why don't you "show me the numbers" here.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Baldwin (B74) media area 290.3 sq.in. Beta 2 rating=22 micron
Donaldson (P550318) media area 258 sq. in. Beta 2 rating=25 micron
GUD-Ryco (Z89) media area ? Beta 2 rating=30-36 micron.
Mann-Hummel (W930/20) media area 354.5 sq. in. Beta 2 rating=18 micron

---

Baldwin Beta 25= 2 = 50% of 25um particles removed
Donaldson Beta 25=2 = 50% of 25um particles removed
GUD-Ryco Beta 30-36 (first one for me) =2= 50% of 30-36um particles removed.

I'm not sure which test this was (multipass or whatever).

 

[Ugly3]

Filter guy - So are you saying oil analysis is moot when it comes to analysing the relationship of the filter? Yes, unless a particle count is done.

Filter guy - So If I removed the filter, are you saying that the oil analysis wouldn't show much different in wear metals? Yes.

 

[Ugly3]

Here is the UOA from an engine run over 4,000 miles with no filter. Bob of BITOG ran the engine test.

no filter at ALL
5w30 blendoil
visc 5w30
miles 4,253

Wear Metals
copper 7
iron 15
chrom 1
alum 4
lead 13

Additives
moly 123
phos 876
zinc 1024
magnesum 9
calc 2198

Contaminants
silicon 12%
antifreeze,fuel,%h20 all 0
Oil Properties
Vsic 10.37 30w
sulfur 42
oxidation 13
nitration 12
soot 0

 

[John W. Colby]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Here is the UOA from an engine run over 4,000 miles with no filter. Bob of BITOG ran the engine test.

no filter at ALL
5w30 blendoil
visc 5w30
miles 4,253

Wear Metals
copper 7
iron 15
chrom 1
alum 4
lead 13

Additives
moly 123
phos 876
zinc 1024
magnesum 9
calc 2198

Contaminants
silicon 12%
antifreeze,fuel,%h20 all 0
Oil Properties
Vsic 10.37 30w
sulfur 42
oxidation 13
nitration 12
soot 0

---

Now all we need is an oil analysis of the same engine with a filter, preferably just before or just after this analysis.

 

[Gary Allan]

I particle count would give you a reasonable idea of how good a filter is doing. You could probably infer a few things. I can't integrate these numbers (not the wear metals) since I'm kinda used to seeing insolubles and have come to rely on that for an indication of good filtration. I've never gotten one "standard" for ox and ni. Some are % ..some just a decimal figure. I never had a "need to know" and it isn't included in a Blackstone report.

But ..let's say that although this isn't a stellar report, it's not a diasterous one either. Lead is high and may indeed be a result of poor air filtration ..but I'd have to point out that Pb seems to be the only thing that's way outta whack. If this was an air filtration problem, you would expect all the other metals that were sandblasted to be high as well. They don't appear to be in relation to the Silicon level and the Pb level.

In the absense of an authoritative interpretation of this report (Mel, got any spare cash for Terry?), this may only be an oil selection situation. This may indeed be a doomsdayers profecy come true with a light weight oil. Fuel is less than 2% ..but .5% is certainly preferred.

I would merely try a 30 weight in the next OCI to see if Pb is reduced. If it is ..then the service duty isn't suited for a 20 weight oil. If it's the same then there are other issues. This should be the sweet spot for this engine.

 

[Ugly3]

John W. Colby - Here is some info from previous UOA reports on Bob's engine with two different oil filters.

Mobil 1 Filter:

Miles Copper Iron Lead
10500 10 19 8
4022 19 17 36

Fram Filter:

Miles Copper Iron Lead
4000 8 12 2
6845 10 16 7
9442 7 20 14
3520 4 8 8

The metal counts of Copper 7, Iron 15, and Lead 13 with no filter at 4000+ miles kind of fits in the data pattern. Hope this helps.

[ May 08, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Ugly3 ]

 

[Filter guy]

For comparison to my test above, here is an oil sample from my 1996 Taurus with 25,898 miles ( or about what I have now on my current Taurus).

Back then I used Mobil 1 filters or AC Duraguard Gold. I can't remember which. I was using Valvoline Durablend semi-synthetic..

So the filter I used had the "best" efficient media at the time...as i got them free..

Now the lab was different, it was the in-house lab. But we had good spectrophotometer equipment.
The lab was mainly used for the Luber-finer brand because truckers and fleet were the ones who sent 90% of the analysis kits in.

So here's is my report from 12/5/98
6,168 miles on the oil change
Cooper 19
Lead 15
Chromium 2
Nickle 1
Lead 1
Sodium 5
Aluminum 3
Tin 0
Silicon 12
solids .1%
Visc 9.7

Now if I compare, and I know it's not apples to apples, certain wear metals with a premium filter from 1998 are higher v the Super Tech I am using now. Yes, different car and engine. But I also know that the medias today are better than they were not to long ago.

I also know, but I don't have the numbers anymore because I no longer work at Champ, that when beta ratio tests are done..that the newer medias are removing the 1-5 micron particle sizes more efficiently than back in 1998. No, they are not 50 % efficient at that level but it is more significant comparatively.

So the net effect is that the current medias are doing a better job. That they will have relatively "more" impact on oil analysis than before.

Any data from even 3-4 years ago on media testing is now old.
Evolution in medias...

It is nice Bob of BITOG can run a test for 4,000 miles with no oil filter. If he is confident that he could continue running that engine with no filter and the numbers not go up..then more power to him.

I remember the old Slick 50 add where they drained oil out of a motor after the treatment and drove the car from Seattle to Vancouver Canada and the engine didn't "fail". How many in here are willing to risk it?..

I believe there is cause and effect with filtration and oil anaylsis, if you don't..no problem..

 

[Ugly3]

Filter guy - I believe there is cause and effect with filtration and oil anaylsis, if you don't..no problem..

This is getting to be funny. I show you six UOAs from the same engine in the same time frame and one of the six was done with no filter, and they all look basically the same. One of the filters is supposed to be one of the best (Mobil 1) and you still think a filter makes a difference in the UOA wear metal values? I didn't say the actual wear was the same in all cases, only that a UOA will not indicate a significant difference. I also did not say that if a particle count were made there would be no difference in the six values.

Taking the other side of the arguement - if the wear metals were impacted by the filter of choice then anyone with a bypass system installed could be experiencing hugh wear and not see it in a UOA and would be fooled into thinking there is little wear. Gee, it must be that UOAs are worthless for indicating the wear in an engine.

 

[Filter guy]

Funny that...

In the trucking industry there are those who over the years have experience at what a by-pass filter offers with regards to engine wear. ( and for their application keeping soot out of the oil).

Cummins engine and Mack engine have by-pass filtration as a standard.

The owners/fleets regularly change oil at about 20,000 miles. With by-pass some get to 75,000 mile oil changes and doing oil analysis on a routine basis.

Those that don't have by-pass filtration have experience with oil analysis on those engines as well.

Those fleets/owners who want to allow less wear..which means fewer engine rebuilds..utilize by-pass filtration.

So they've proved it to themselves over 30 years worth of experience. Over ever changing oil formulations during that time.

Caterpillar recommends by-pass for thier stationary engines used as power sources.

Wonder why these engine companies would want by-pass filtration .. if removing the finer particles didn't help reduce engine wear?

Which gets back to my premise that the oil filter medias in use today have improved at being able to remove smaller particles. Now they still aren't as good as a by-pass filter.

But automotive types..meaning car and pick-up truck onwers..do not keep their cars long enough. Don't run 100,000 miles per year. Rarely rebuild an engine. And couldn't be bothered following oil change guidelines because they're just going to trade their car off and let the next guy/gal worry about it.

When you're paying $10-30,000 to rebuild a heavy duty engine..truckers are a bit more fussy over their oils and filters than the general joe consumer car owner.

 

[Ugly3]

Filter guy - Wonder why these engine companies would want by-pass filtration .. if removing the finer particles didn't help reduce engine wear?

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I did not say bapass filtration does not reduce wear, I said that if bypass filtration removes the particles that a UOA would normally see then a UOA would be a poor indicator of actual engine wear. In theory, If a filter could remove all the particles from the oil then the engine could be tearing itself up and the UOA would show -0- wear.

 

[Filter guy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Filter guy - Wonder why these engine companies would want by-pass filtration .. if removing the finer particles didn't help reduce engine wear?

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I did not say bapass filtration does not reduce wear, I said that if bypass filtration removes the particles that a UOA would normally see then a UOA would be a poor indicator of actual engine wear. In theory, If a filter could remove all the particles from the oil then the engine could be tearing itself up and the UOA would show -0- wear.

---

Ok..that's true.

Oil analysis can not "predict" a catastrophic failure.

What oil analysis is used for is to determine the general condition of the engine and see the progression of wear from one sample to another.

So that those who use oil anlysis can utilize the information to determine certain engine problems should specific wear metals increase consistently over time. Such a copper on the increase in multiple reports..chance are the bearings are wearing out. Time for a trade..

 

[Winston]

Wow, this is getting confusing. So, Ugly says that a UOA is not a good indicator of engine wear. (and he backs that statement up with a lot of data). It makes you wonder why not? I assume that wear is defined as the wearing off of metals from; cam lobes, cylinder walls, bearing surfaces, etc. Then the metal being worn off must be too big for the spectrometer to read? Or what else is the answer. This is strange, intuitively I would think that the amount of small particles being worn off is proportional to the amount of large particles being worn off.

Here is a hypothesis. Maybe the high Fe numbers from the new Mobil 1 analyses are because there are less large pieces of iron being worn off, but more smaller pieces of iron(which show up in the analysis). However, there is less total mass of iron being worn off with the new Mobil 1.

Boy, my head hurts.

I wish Filter Guy had just cut up his filter....

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winston:
Wow, this is getting confusing. So, Ugly says that a UOA is not a good indicator of engine wear. (and he backs that statement up with a lot of data). It makes you wonder why not? I assume that wear is defined as the wearing off of metals from; cam lobes, cylinder walls, bearing surfaces, etc. Then the metal being worn off must be too big for the spectrometer to read? Or what else is the answer. This is strange, intuitively I would think that the amount of small particles being worn off is proportional to the amount of large particles being worn off.

Here is a hypothesis. Maybe the high Fe numbers from the new Mobil 1 analyses are because there are less large pieces of iron being worn off, but more smaller pieces of iron(which show up in the analysis). However, there is less total mass of iron being worn off with the new Mobil 1.

Boy, my head hurts.

I wish Filter Guy had just cut up his filter....

---

Whay I said was if a filter could remove all the particulate from the oil then a UOA is not capable of demonstrating engine wear.

 

[Winston]

OK. So, I am making the wrong conclusions. Let me see here.

quote:

---

From Ugly; I show you six UOAs from the same engine in the same time frame and one of the six was done with no filter, and they all look basically the same. One of the filters is supposed to be one of the best (Mobil 1) and you still think a filter makes a difference in the UOA wear metal values? I didn't say the actual wear was the same in all cases, only that a UOA will not indicate a significant difference.

---

This quote is why I thought you were saying that a UOA will not indicate wear rates. (the last sentance specifically).

What am I missing?

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winston:
OK. So, I am making the wrong conclusions. Let me see here.

quote:

---

From Ugly; I show you six UOAs from the same engine in the same time frame and one of the six was done with no filter, and they all look basically the same. One of the filters is supposed to be one of the best (Mobil 1) and you still think a filter makes a difference in the UOA wear metal values? I didn't say the actual wear was the same in all cases, only that a UOA will not indicate a significant difference.

---

This quote is why I thought you were saying that a UOA will not indicate wear rates. (the last sentance specifically).

What am I missing?

---

My point in the portion you quoted was that the data suggests that a UOA would look about the same no matter what filter you are using (or maybe no filter). This was in response to Filter guy indicating that the filter would remove the wear particles from the oil. I don't know if wear metals in a UOA accuratly indicate the actual wear going on in an engine. I do believe that if you had a series of UOAs (same engine, same oil brand and viscosity) indicating 15 to 20 PPM of iron and then you got two reports with 75 PPM of iron something bad is going on. You need a lot of data to make a determination.

 

[Ugly3]

Are we far enough

yet?