TAN preferred - TBN "useless" ???

[TeeDub]

TAN is typically used to evaluate the condition of used ATF and Gear Lubes. TBN is typically used to evaluate the condition of used engine oils.

The TBN by itself is only one factor in evaluating the condition of used oil and perhaps not even the most important one. I also consider the relative and absolute #'s of oxidation/nitration, the viscosity, the amount of fuel dilution, the silicon/soot levels, and the overall wear characteristics. The reduction in the FP of the oil is also an indication of the # of volatile species in the oil, regardless of the concentration of raw gasoline or diesel fuel.

You have to look at the UOA data holistically and not just key in one or two factors.

TD

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

The TBN by itself is only one factor in evaluating the condition of used oil and perhaps not even the most important one. I also consider the relative and absolute #'s of oxidation/nitration, the viscosity, the amount of fuel dilution, the silicon/soot levels, and the overall wear characteristics. The reduction in the FP of the oil is also an indication of the # of volatile species in the oil, regardless of the concentration of raw gasoline or diesel fuel.

You have to look at the UOA data holistically and not just key in one or two factors.

TD

---

I'll have to remember that next time I see one of your "your TBN is too low posts."

 

[craigq]

Quote:

---

When I order my next box of kits from them, I'm going to get their new MOB 1+ package. It still gives you TBN, but it's using the infrared method instead of titration. The price is way better, it's $240 for a case of 12

---

Patman, is this true? Thanks for the info! The last time I checked individual MOB1 kits were $29 each. $12/kit in bulk is a good deal!

 

[va3ux]

Quote:

---

TAN is typically used to evaluate the condition of used ATF and Gear Lubes. TBN is typically used to evaluate the condition of used engine oils.

---

Not according to the analyst I spoke to. I'm not sure what to believe. Everything is so TBN oriented here, but I doubt that we could be in error here that long without having been corrected at some point. Could we ?

Quote:

---

The TBN by itself is only one factor in evaluating the condition of used oil and perhaps not even the most important one. I also consider the relative and absolute #'s of oxidation/nitration, the viscosity, the amount of fuel dilution, the silicon/soot levels, and the overall wear characteristics. The reduction in the FP of the oil is also an indication of the # of volatile species in the oil, regardless of the concentration of raw gasoline or diesel fuel.
You have to look at the used oil analysis data holistically and not just key in one or two factors.TD

---

No argument there.

Speaking of Oxidation and Nitration, I also had a chat with WearCheck about that too since those numbers (and Sulfation ) are provided with each analysis. What I heard leads me to believe that the numbers are next to useless the way WearCheck reports them, but I'm willing to be educated further.

The oxidation numbers reported by WearCheck are not absolute values. They are a percentile ranking based on analysis from 100,000 oil samples. So my "42%" oxidation is not percent transmittance, or 42% of allowable based on known limits for my specific oil. It says that 41% of the samples in their database have lower oxidation than mine, while 58% have higher oxidation than my sample. I believe they use the same method for Nitration and Sulfation.

Now my first thought is that I really couldn't care less how I stack up against anyone else; I really want to know how damaged or contaminated my oil is. However in order to determine that absolutely, I think specific test data on the specific oil brand/type would have to be available for comparison, and that could get expensive. Or perhaps there are known accepted industry values/ranges for this sort of thing. However as the analyst pointed out, once a base trendline has been determined for the particular application (I have 6 used oil analysis from the past year now), I should be mainly interested in changes in the trend, specifically abrupt changes.

Any knowledgeable thoughts on this (Terry...are you there ?).

 

[va3ux]

Quote:

---

I used to run maintenance doses of Auto-rx in my old 95 Formula, and the Wearcheck reports never showed a positive for glycol.

---

That's good to know. Thanks.
In my case, the sodium and potassium were consistent with previous analysis where the Glycol was always Negative, and wear metals were all in-line with previous analysis (ie. low). So all the alarms are not sounding yet.

I'm going to do a follow up analysis in about a week. I've put nearly 6500 km on this oil in 4 weeks, so it isn't too soon to do a recheck.

 

[va3ux]

Quote:

---

So no comments related to the link included in my previous post.

Is that guy an ignorant ??

---

Just read it Baveaux. Thanks. That does help. And so does Terry's comment that you need both for a "good read"

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

However in order to determine that absolutely, I think specific test data on the specific oil brand/type would have to be available for comparison, and that could get expensive.

---

IIRC, I believe that's what Terry uses in his analysis. He acquires an independent test database of formulations. Mucho denarios.

 

[JAG]

There are good articles online about this subject. Paste these words into Google and have at it: tan tbn oil.
The new PH test sounds interesting.

 

[Patman]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When I order my next box of kits from them, I'm going to get their new MOB 1+ package. It still gives you TBN, but it's using the infrared method instead of titration. The price is way better, it's $240 for a case of 12

---

Patman, is this true? Thanks for the info! The last time I checked individual MOB1 kits were $29 each. $12/kit in bulk is a good deal!

---

I only wish it were $12 per kit! At $240 for a box of 12 that works out to $20 per kit. Still a great deal though!

 

[craigq]

Quote:

---

I only wish it were $12 per kit! At $240 for a box of 12 that works out to $20 per kit. Still a great deal though!

---

Back to remedial math for me!

Hmmmm decisions... The standard MOB1 can be picked up for $13/kit at a Petro-Can depot with no S&H fees involved, only on the return of the kits...

 

[Terry]

yugrus, if you can get the oil to the lab here we can interpret it more accurately and more efficiently than ANYONE In the industry. In fact if you cannot do that I will interpret any labs data so you are not wasting time and money guessing or asking for free interpretations online! You get what you pay for.

Terry

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

In fact if you cannot do that I will interpret any labs data...

---

Terry, do you use ASTM data from the Savant, Institute of Materials when doing your professional interpretations?

Quote:

---

...so you are not wasting time and money guessing or asking for free interpretations online!

You get what you pay for.

Terry

---

Absolutely!

 

[Terry]

Its a shame that Canadians have more obstacles and issues sending oil samples to us than my customers from Singapore,UK,really all over the World. Give it a shot and enjoy the quality differential in our service!

427, I do buy refence data at times from IOM if we do not have access from our own database. Not very often though. Costly!