That is good to know. Thanks for reaching out to get answers. Also nice to know you received a reasonable response.
Triple Lab Showdown - HPL Premium Plus PCMO 0W-30
- Thread starter 2.7ecoboostFordBronco
- Start date
Could not agree with you more as usual. I don't think you could get me to use Blackstone. Some of these oil analysis institutions are just a hair or two away from being pathetic. They just haven't ever tested a really really good oil so they don't know how to handle it. It just goes to show that sometimes a basic oil analysis is fine but in certain circumstances and with certain higher quality higher end material the money we tried to spend to get an answer only left us with twice as many questions remaining.Good grief, Blackstone really needs to get their act together
Lake's been very responsive to follow-up emails, and I've had many. When looking for an oil for the Audi, he cautioned me about using the Ravenol VSE in a DI, turbocharged engine due to the high levels of calcium and sodium.
I'll continue to use SD and pay closer attention to all the fields when a report arrives and immediately let him know if there are discrepancies. Hopefully he'll get better at catching himself. No doubt with 6.2L issues, he's busier than ever.
Thanks for following up on that. I would also like to know why SD fuel dilution numbers are only 30-50% as high vs OA/Polaris UOA’s when both labs use gas chromatography (~1% vs ~3%). I’ve only sent 2 UOA’s to both labs so far though. I’m planning to send my next few UOA samples to SD, OA, and wearcheck to see the fuel dilution numbers for comparison. I paid Wearcheck extra to ensure they will do the GC test, which they normally omit if the viscosity is close to their expected values.
A few PPM is still only a few PPM. You’d need dozens of UOAs all at exactly the same number for a new incoming UOA that was a few PPM different to indicate anything at all, and even then it’s only minimally relevant unless it is off so far that it’s outside of the standard deviation of the measurement device’s accuracy.
I personally don’t even blink until the differences are double digits, and repeat over a least two consecutive UOAs.
Now that you have to question the veracity of the report, how are you supposed to feel
comfortable with any of the answers they provide? It’s not like you can guess which ones they actually got correct this time.
That’s one of the good, general reasons why a specific PPM result isn’t a bright idea to rely on, and exactly why a UOA is the correct tool to check viscosity, contamination, and BN/AN levels…. Not compare wear metals.
I feel like I should be lying on a couch and writing a big check at the end of the session. Oh wait, I am writing a big check. Now I need a nap.
I found it interesting that the manufacturer of a new unleaded fuel for piston airplane engines was using blackstone anlaysis to assess the relative suitability of their fuel compared to the legacy leaded fuels. Granted they had to use engine teardowns and physically measure parts wear to gain certification for their fuel, but they were still doing oil analysis.
OP shows more than just a few ppm. Lab variance is real & as stated different labs tests can have wildly different numbers. Best to stick with one lab & my post was to say lab variance is going to happen especially across different labs and showing others this post will only confirm that. Yes, small PPM differences from a different or same lab isn't an issue though.
Similar threads
