I will run vis manualy tommorrow TBN from my lab a ASTM 2896
there are 2 others that are used i think the 2896 reads the highest.
there are 2 others that are used i think the 2896 reads the highest.
Synlube UOA From Budman
- Thread starter bruce381
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Mystic
This may be a silly question but is there any use for waste oil where the TBN has to be high, and something is added to increase the TBN? Otherwise if they were using waste oil the TNB would be low. Just wondering.
waste oil viscosity cant be worth a cr.ap, adding pricey additive pack to the oil would be silly, one could just buy new oil. using old oil for oil burner would not need additives.
This may be a silly question but is there any use for waste oil where the TBN has to be high, and something is added to increase the TBN? Otherwise if they were using waste oil the TNB would be low. Just wondering.
waste oil viscosity cant be worth a cr.ap, adding pricey additive pack to the oil would be silly, one could just buy new oil. using old oil for oil burner would not need additives.
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
Your car your money, go for it. After 19,000 miles that oil is not doing well, if you don't believe in a UOA report that's fine. Just continue using Synlube for the full interval they suggest, and see what happens.
A lot of people on this board that are truly experts and know a lot more than I do wouldn't touch the stuff, even w/o a UOA or VOA to go by.
A friendly word of advise, get the Synlube out of the car, and service the engine the way the mfg recommends. I work hard for my money, real hard. After looking at 70 something pages of [censored] on the other site and the history surrounding the company itself tells me: STAY CLEAR!!!!!!!
Look at it this way, lets say your engine does fail because of Synlube do you think Miro is going to help you? That is even if you could find him. If you want a UOA that shows the product is working perfectly send Miro a sample. If you want the truth look here.
JMO.....Good luck!
A lot of people on this board that are truly experts and know a lot more than I do wouldn't touch the stuff, even w/o a UOA or VOA to go by.
A friendly word of advise, get the Synlube out of the car, and service the engine the way the mfg recommends. I work hard for my money, real hard. After looking at 70 something pages of [censored] on the other site and the history surrounding the company itself tells me: STAY CLEAR!!!!!!!
Look at it this way, lets say your engine does fail because of Synlube do you think Miro is going to help you? That is even if you could find him. If you want a UOA that shows the product is working perfectly send Miro a sample. If you want the truth look here.
JMO.....Good luck!
Originally Posted By: Budman
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
If it were me, I would drain that oil out ASAP. Those wear numbers look awful. There have been UOA's on 25k dino oil that have looked better. If I were you, I would drain the Synlube and fill with Pennzoil Yellow Bottle and do several short OCI's to flush and clean the engine. You do not say what Saturn this is, but I am guessing it is an GM Ecotec engine. Which makes the UOA even worse as those are generally very low wearing engines. Maybe Synlube is killing the timing chain? That 166 ppm of FE is really scary.
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
If it were me, I would drain that oil out ASAP. Those wear numbers look awful. There have been UOA's on 25k dino oil that have looked better. If I were you, I would drain the Synlube and fill with Pennzoil Yellow Bottle and do several short OCI's to flush and clean the engine. You do not say what Saturn this is, but I am guessing it is an GM Ecotec engine. Which makes the UOA even worse as those are generally very low wearing engines. Maybe Synlube is killing the timing chain? That 166 ppm of FE is really scary.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
I will run vis manualy tommorrow TBN from my lab a ASTM 2896
there are 2 others that are used i think the 2896 reads the highest.
Polaris uses ASTM D4739
I will run vis manualy tommorrow TBN from my lab a ASTM 2896
there are 2 others that are used i think the 2896 reads the highest.
Polaris uses ASTM D4739
Originally Posted By: Budman
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
Don't leave. You don't post often but your posts do carry value that would be missed. To change any views here would take a decent trend for review. I appreciate your candor about your synlube experiences and the samples you have provided.
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
Don't leave. You don't post often but your posts do carry value that would be missed. To change any views here would take a decent trend for review. I appreciate your candor about your synlube experiences and the samples you have provided.
I don't understand UOAs either. But the people that do are not singing its praises.
The guy who makes the oil claims only his pet lab results are valid.
The people who use it, with the exception of budman, act like rabid attacks dogs on anyone who doesn't take their word on how great the oil is.
The guy who makes the oil claims only his pet lab results are valid.
The people who use it, with the exception of budman, act like rabid attacks dogs on anyone who doesn't take their word on how great the oil is.
Originally Posted By: Budman
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
Budman, I believe these attacks are more against Synlube and not yourself, keep Synlube in your engine for as long as you want and maybe we may all learn something.
Bitog Members, please do not attack and upset Budman, he is nice enough to provide us with a UOA, and hopefully we will see future UOA's from Budman on Synlube and then we can decide if this oil is really worth anything.
Please everyone, say and debate what you will regarding Synlube and this UOA but PLEASE don't offend me in suggesting I am anything but just a normal guy who has given Miro the benefit of doubt and decided to try it for my three cars (two currently).
I have tried to report everything without bias in regards to the disaster I had with the Murano (which I honestly know it really had nothing to do with Synlube) and continued to report with the use of it currently, even taking my time to drain and send off a sample to Bruce to please everyone. I am not a 'shill', have absolutely nothing to do with Synlube other than as a paid consumer, and attacking my integrity makes me wonder if it is even worth posting here anymore (or even reading) if everyone just makes it hard to contribute with unrelenting doubt and accusations.
In other posts in this UOA forum everyone chimes in and offers their opinion and advice of the analysis and claps hands with each other of how good an oil may have done in the particular engine. Here we just use the UOA to attack the product and use it as more fuel to chase the "synlube people" out of town.
This sample came from MY REAL car (Saturn) that had 20,xxx miles on it at time of sample. In another thread somewhere on this forum I posted pictures of me installing synlube back in early 2008 when I bought the car and it had 1149 miles on it (i have pic of odometer at the time as well on my PC). It has gone through two filter changes since then as well as topping up with their ADD oil when needed. 19,011 miles on this sample and more everyday since it is still in my car.
Since I am not an expert in UOA's I have NO idea what this is really showing me, if it is actually good for an oil that has been in use this long (short trips in brutal desert) OR if it is real bad and should be removed asap. I do know that the high iron and copper scare me just by common knowledge browsing this UOA forum for a few years, but the variance in the samples also makes me wonder if UOA's are even legit other than for large fleets monitoring trending.
At this point I am convinced there will be no end to the debates of ANY oil's true worth and differences between them all. It is what keeps this board going.
I also believe that we honestly will never REALLY know if the claims of this product (or any others such as Amsoil's charts degrading other brands or Mobil commercials, etc) can be substantiated outside of a complete teardown of engines at 100k and actually measuring how far from new spec they are and compare to exact engines using other products.
I doubt the big oil companies would want this known because surely they have had done it already. The masses might come to realize there is basically zero difference in oils, change intervals (within reason) or even that something like Synlube has been correct all along. Brands and marketing rule the roost and they pay alot of time and money to keep it that way.
Thanks
-Budman
Budman, I believe these attacks are more against Synlube and not yourself, keep Synlube in your engine for as long as you want and maybe we may all learn something.
Bitog Members, please do not attack and upset Budman, he is nice enough to provide us with a UOA, and hopefully we will see future UOA's from Budman on Synlube and then we can decide if this oil is really worth anything.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
The guy who makes the oil claims only his pet lab results are valid.
That is not entirely true. There is some issues with testing and validating the samples when you have solids as part of the formula. Repeatability is also a big issue.
In an email exchange with Miro yesterday he stated the Polaris sample was overall corrent but there are areas that did not test as they should. In the VOA the viscosity is to high, FE and copper should be higher, vanadium should also be present, fuel should not be present and soot is as expected do to the use of solids.
Miro's main issue with independent labs is from past experience and inconsistent data.
The guy who makes the oil claims only his pet lab results are valid.
That is not entirely true. There is some issues with testing and validating the samples when you have solids as part of the formula. Repeatability is also a big issue.
In an email exchange with Miro yesterday he stated the Polaris sample was overall corrent but there are areas that did not test as they should. In the VOA the viscosity is to high, FE and copper should be higher, vanadium should also be present, fuel should not be present and soot is as expected do to the use of solids.
Miro's main issue with independent labs is from past experience and inconsistent data.
Originally Posted By: c3po
Budman, I believe these attacks are more against Synlube and not yourself, keep Synlube in your engine for as long as you want and maybe we may all learn something.
I agree, Budman is unfortunately inheriting the doubt created by the synlube folks and obvious synlube shills. Their behavior shouldn't reflect on Budman personally at all.
But it should be expected that people are going to be very skeptical in looking at any synlube related info. because there is so much unscrupulous behavior from the synlube folks. How can any reasonable person who has looked at all the synlube background not be extremely distrustful of this product and info. relating to it?
Budman, I believe these attacks are more against Synlube and not yourself, keep Synlube in your engine for as long as you want and maybe we may all learn something.
I agree, Budman is unfortunately inheriting the doubt created by the synlube folks and obvious synlube shills. Their behavior shouldn't reflect on Budman personally at all.
But it should be expected that people are going to be very skeptical in looking at any synlube related info. because there is so much unscrupulous behavior from the synlube folks. How can any reasonable person who has looked at all the synlube background not be extremely distrustful of this product and info. relating to it?
Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
Originally Posted By: Trajan
The guy who makes the oil claims only his pet lab results are valid.
That is not entirely true. There is some issues with testing and validating the samples when you have solids as part of the formula. ...
So you are saying that the variances in the following two synlube VOAs, which were done by the same lab, can be accounted for by lab error? I don't buy that.
#1
Vis @ 100 15.4 (40wt)
TBN 2.5
FE 11
AL 3
PB 8
B 146
NA 32
MO 1597
P 1246
ZN 52
CA 110
MG 26
Others trace
#2 (actually 2 VOAs on the same sample are posted below)
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR- NI- AL-2-----0
PB- CU- SN- AG- TI- SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K- MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA- MG-366--396
SB- V-
[email protected]
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
Originally Posted By: Trajan
The guy who makes the oil claims only his pet lab results are valid.
That is not entirely true. There is some issues with testing and validating the samples when you have solids as part of the formula. ...
So you are saying that the variances in the following two synlube VOAs, which were done by the same lab, can be accounted for by lab error? I don't buy that.
#1
Vis @ 100 15.4 (40wt)
TBN 2.5
FE 11
AL 3
PB 8
B 146
NA 32
MO 1597
P 1246
ZN 52
CA 110
MG 26
Others trace
#2 (actually 2 VOAs on the same sample are posted below)
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR- NI- AL-2-----0
PB- CU- SN- AG- TI- SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K- MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA- MG-366--396
SB- V-
[email protected]
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
#1 sample was "small Engine" bottle had pictures of lawn mowers on it is not same as "regular" synlube I guess
# 2 is correct both labs agree other than TBN mine is ASTM 2896 do not know what polaris uses they are all diferent in readings
Vis is in my lab is 9.9 run 3x average in calibrated tube used daily.
# 2 is correct both labs agree other than TBN mine is ASTM 2896 do not know what polaris uses they are all diferent in readings
Vis is in my lab is 9.9 run 3x average in calibrated tube used daily.
#1 is the small engine formula which is supposed to be different in some way? Less graphite I believe not sure what else.
#2 is 2 different labs testing samples from the same quart that I submitted for testing.
I just received the rerun viscosity from Polaris and I need the call the lab yet again the variations from the previous report is that great.
#2 is 2 different labs testing samples from the same quart that I submitted for testing.
I just received the rerun viscosity from Polaris and I need the call the lab yet again the variations from the previous report is that great.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
#1 sample was "small Engine" bottle had pictures of lawn mowers on it is not same as "regular" synlube I guess
# 2 is correct both labs agree other than TBN mine is ASTM 2896 do not know what polaris uses they are all diferent in readings
Vis is in my lab is 9.9 run 3x average in calibrated tube used daily.
Polaris uses ASTM D4739
The new Polaris vis report was also 9.9.
How did they come up with 23.4 the 1st time.
#1 sample was "small Engine" bottle had pictures of lawn mowers on it is not same as "regular" synlube I guess
# 2 is correct both labs agree other than TBN mine is ASTM 2896 do not know what polaris uses they are all diferent in readings
Vis is in my lab is 9.9 run 3x average in calibrated tube used daily.
Polaris uses ASTM D4739
The new Polaris vis report was also 9.9.
How did they come up with 23.4 the 1st time.
According to Miro it is not exactly the same and ships from a different state entirely.
do not know other than Both VOA are thin on vis
Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
Originally Posted By: bruce381
#1 sample was "small Engine" bottle had pictures of lawn mowers on it is not same as "regular" synlube I guess
# 2 is correct both labs agree other than TBN mine is ASTM 2896 do not know what polaris uses they are all diferent in readings
Vis is in my lab is 9.9 run 3x average in calibrated tube used daily.
Polaris uses ASTM D4739
The new Polaris vis report was also 9.9.
It is way black and "wets" out odd on vis tube so perhaps automatic vis machine will "see" the black longer than it really is ther and reads a high number tho with my eyeball I can see if OK.
TBN with 2896 is normally higher than 4739 numbers so i think labs agree OK with corrected vis
How did they come up with 23.4 the 1st time.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
#1 sample was "small Engine" bottle had pictures of lawn mowers on it is not same as "regular" synlube I guess
# 2 is correct both labs agree other than TBN mine is ASTM 2896 do not know what polaris uses they are all diferent in readings
Vis is in my lab is 9.9 run 3x average in calibrated tube used daily.
Polaris uses ASTM D4739
The new Polaris vis report was also 9.9.
It is way black and "wets" out odd on vis tube so perhaps automatic vis machine will "see" the black longer than it really is ther and reads a high number tho with my eyeball I can see if OK.
TBN with 2896 is normally higher than 4739 numbers so i think labs agree OK with corrected vis
How did they come up with 23.4 the 1st time.
- Status
