UOA comparisons, syn versus dino...

[T-Stick]

As an observation here:
I find it interesting to note that synthetic proponents would rely upon a UOA for the basis of an extended drain interval, when they have vigorously objected to drawing any specific performance conclusions from that "ambiguous data base."

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
As an observation here:
I find it interesting to note that synthetic proponents would rely upon a UOA for the basis of an extended drain interval, when they have vigorously objected to drawing any specific performance conclusions from that "ambiguous data base."

---

You have absolutely misconstrued what I've said about UOAs. I have questioned: 1) assuming that the source of metal values is all a result of wear, and 2) assuming that you can draw broad-brush conclusions about oils in general from a hodge-podge of UOAs taken under a wide variety of differing conditions.

That does NOT mean that you can't use UOA from an individual engine to make specific decisions about that particular engine. That's a very different thing, and much more in line with what UOAs were meant to do.

A small group of UOAs on one engine, reflecting how that engine reacts to its driver and operating conditions can tell you far more than our hundreds of UOAs can tell you about oil in general.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nickmckinney:

quote:

---

We can discuss where the lead came from but we can't argue about which oil gave lower lead numbers can we? The dino, with the benefit of 20% makeup oil, was still higher.

---

From looking at your UOA I would imagine the lead is not related to the oil or the bearings, but possibly to the fuel or other additive. If both lead and copper went up, you could look for bearing issues, but in your case they went in opposite directions.

---

Same fuel purchased at the same assortment of local stations for both UOA's. I don't recall any fuel additives but I can't say with certainty over a year later that none were used. I just don't remember and I don't write down that sort of thing. I do remember the car running on the verge of overheating for a couple of miles when the serpentine belt shredded during the M1 interval. Who knows if that was a factor.

But if I were trying to find a reason unrelated to wear to prove *my* point, I could try to make a case that the higher iron with M1 was also unrelated to wear and was a function of the length of time the oil was in the engine, the aforementioned hot running, and/or environmental conditions during storage. I won't though, since that wasn't the original premise of the thread..

It was assumed in the beginning ( likely wrongfully ) that these numbers are actually showing us real wear, and that dino lubes show better wear numbers than synthetics. Given the constraints of the thread, I think this UOA shows that to not always be the case. One thing we can be sure of though, the dino numbers have the benefit of 20% new makeup oil added a week before the UOA. I'll leave it up to whoever to decide if it's the differences are really wear the better or worse oil, the fuel, the year, cosmic rays, aliens, star alignment, or some unknown other factor that causes the numbers to read the way they do...

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
As an observation here:
I find it interesting to note that synthetic proponents would rely upon a UOA for the basis of an extended drain interval, when they have vigorously objected to drawing any specific performance conclusions from that "ambiguous data base."

---

Not the case at all. Looking at my UOA, the dino supporters are attempting to explain away the higher lead reading with one lube as factors unrelated to the oil, or to predict where it would end up with equivalent mileage, while at the same time, they're using the same UOA to claim the other numbers are better with dino and it's assumed they are actually wear.

Looks like someone is trying to have it both ways to prove their point, and it's not me...

 

[nickmckinney]

Jsharp - its possible that the fuel itself had a little bit of lead, possibly from distribution cross contamination. A little bit of Avgas can go a long way on a lead reading, it has either 2 or 3grams per gallon I think (and smells really good at the track I will admit) Without doing another 3K run and UOA, its a guess as to what was oil and what was not, but with copper going down, I can't see it being bearings.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nickmckinney:
Jsharp - its possible that the fuel itself had a little bit of lead, possibly from distribution cross contamination. A little bit of Avgas can go a long way on a lead reading, it has either 2 or 3grams per gallon I think (and smells really good at the track I will admit) Without doing another 3K run and UOA, its a guess as to what was oil and what was not, but with copper going down, I can't see it being bearings.

---

I agree with this, but to me, it points to a much larger issue with using these UOA's to try and show one oil or type of oir superior to another. The external factors can often outweigh the oil differences many times over.

I notice using the exact same oil in the exact same vehicles that certain metals, particularly iron, are much higher in the winter.

I notice the use of a simple fuel treatment can also change UOA numbers noticably, and even base fuel consistancy is impossible to quantify given the differences from summer to winter in my part of the country.

Plus as I mentioned in another thread, when the intervals get so short and the numbers get so low, the potential error in the process is as great as the absolute numbers we're measuring. That is *not* a good measurment no matter how you look at it.

So, can what we have for data on this board prove the dino vs. syn point either way. Not to me it doesn't, but I'm a doubter by nature.

I've already stated why I run the oils I run and it has little to do with wear numbers we can deduce from these simple UOA's...

 

[jsharp]

And Dan, nickmckinney, and others. Good discussion...

 

[nickmckinney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp: Not the case at all. Looking at my UOA, the dino supporters are attempting to explain away the higher lead reading with one lube as factors unrelated to the oil, or to predict where it would end up with equivalent mileage, while at the same time, they're using the same UOA to claim the other numbers are better with dino and it's assumed they are actually wear.

---

First time in my life I have ever been called a dino supporter

IMHO - your UOA comparision is meaningless with respect to lead for both dino and synthetic as we all have zero idea where that lead came from because it was not the bearings (IMHO)

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nickmckinney:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp: Not the case at all. Looking at my UOA, the dino supporters are attempting to explain away the higher lead reading with one lube as factors unrelated to the oil, or to predict where it would end up with equivalent mileage, while at the same time, they're using the same UOA to claim the other numbers are better with dino and it's assumed they are actually wear.

---

First time in my life I have ever been called a dino supporter

IMHO - your UOA comparision is meaningless with respect to lead for both dino and synthetic as we all have zero idea where that lead came from because it was not the bearings (IMHO)

---

I'll ask my kid if he put any "race fuel" in the car one of the times he drove it.

I'm sure I'll get the definitive and truthful answer there, from a 19 yo with dad's 5.0L Mustang...

 

[nickmckinney]

IMHO - I don't see a superiority for dino or synthetic other than:

Dino is cheaper.

Dino steps up its quality every year.

Synthetic still handle heat and extended drains better.

You can't use true synthetic when racing on alcohol.

There isn't enough data to say that either one wears more with a 100% degree of accuracy for normal passenger car usage.

There is enough data to infer that both will work near the same if they are only used up to say 5K, and then after that synthetics do not wear out as fast. However one still cannot state either with 100% accuracy.

We can argue all we want both ways, but the above is just about fact, and anything else, there just isn't enough statistical data. Since I prefer to change at 5K, I am now using more dino where I can and saving the extra money for the gas tank. When I go road racing again I will use synthetic.

 

[bulwnkl]

F-T-M, I would like to try to address the subject you asked for. I will not reiterate the explanation of 'wear' metals and what is what or when you'll see them in a UOA and when you won't.

Instead, I will answer by pointing out that in the USA, where you and I live and work (and I believe in all of North America), synthetic oil is defined as Group III, IV, or V. Not defined by me, not defined by you, but defined by the industry about which we are talking. As such, all of your 5W20 examples are the very proof you seek which refutes your premise.

Please stay on-point by leaving debate about whether Group III oils are synthetic or not out of this discussion. In the USA and the rest of North America they are defined as synthetics. Discussion of the validity of that definition is a separate issue and belongs in a separate post.

 

[nickmckinney]

You have got to be kidding me with the above group 3 garbage. Just because some judge decides to call group 3 synthetics doesn't mean the rest of the world sees it as such, especially with the oil nuts around here.

What you could really repeat though which is what the GM engineer said;

that all SM spec oils are now basically semi-synthetic anyway

Talk about stirring the pot

 

[darryld13]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
darryl, I don't know when that Honda V6 is considered to be broken in. The numbers are all very close anyway. Copper took a dip with the first M1 change, then went back up a bit. (Which is not commensurate with the idea that the M1 was cleaning the engine--or it would have been lower on the second go-round). I would say the engine was probably still breaking in.

{SNIP}
Dan

---

Actually Dan, there are only two UOA periods there - I had samples from the 21K interval sent to Blackstone and Butler for comparison purposes. The Butler results were a bit higher, possibly due to the introduction of condensataion. Copper did not go up, but insolubles did, which MIGHT indicate some cleaning did take place during the M1 interval.

[ October 13, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: darryld13 ]

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
{snip}Had I made the claim that dinos can equal synthetics in extreme heat applications, and in very extended drains, or in totally neglected engines such as the Porsche engine Ekpolk linked to--such points would be valid--and deserving of being addressed.

However--

The topic is wear metals, and whether or not syns can reduce those wear metals in typical passenger car applications.

I sensed that this discourse would be steered into issues of extended drains, severe overheating, and such, and I typed in my opening post:

Important Preface: The theme of this post concerns wear metal counts, and rebuttals should remain on point. We can discuss long term engine cleanliness issues, or matters related to high temperature oil breakdown in other threads.

To which Ekpolk replied: "It's not really fair to selectively frame the issue so as to channel the answers into the pattern you hope to see emerge."

Then Pablo quipped:

"ekpolk- yikes....he thought he could control what we post - I thought that's why we have moderators."

Again, extended drain potential and engine cleanliness issues have nothing to do with wear metal counts in 5K and under OCIs. (In the case of engine cleanliness, if an engine sludges early on and oil passageways get blocked, the wear metals will increase considerably, so in that regard engine cleanliness would be an issue--but such cases are far from the norm, and we would see at least three or four UOAs reflecting the sludging, clogging, and commensurate wear numbers in the archives here if this were a real issue).

If some of you choose to believe that high iron in a Mobil 1 sample, or high copper in a Redline sample are not indications that some part of the engine has given up those metals--that's your prerogative. I don't share that point of view, and likely will never--unless someone offers up a better explanation for the phenominon than I've seen here so far.

Dan

---

Dan:

The amazing side-steping continues. You don't like the Porsche UOA, it does not fit your preconceived notions, so you dismiss it as a case of neglect. Yet that car was driven the the mfr's recommended OCI.

You continue to insist on keeping your topic artificially narrowed to what you call "wear metals". But you have as yet failed to explain how you distinguish between wear metal and metal generated through other processes (corrosion, contamination, etc.) in a cheap UOA. Then you slide into using different terminology: some part of the engine has "given up those metals." Sure it has, unless the metal came from an additive, the fuel, or the oil itself (remember early GC and the substantial iron in its VOAs?). And if the engine did "give it up", how did it do so? Was that iron scraped from a cylinder wall, or did was it corroded off of a non-functioning surface?

Dan, maybe I'm being unduly harsh, but there's just way too much going on here, and the reason that some of us are bringing up other issues you don't want to talk about is that you've defined the issue into near-meaninglessness, yet from that, you draw broad conclusions. The only way address those broad conclusions is to bring in those other matters. There's the truth, and then of course, there's the whole truth.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Respectfully, I think that the reason that some of you keep wanting to introduce extended drain potential into a wear metal mitigation conversation is that's the only arrow in your quiver.

Again--how does a Porsche which was neglected by not having its oil changed for four years or whatever prove that synthetics can reduce wear metals over dinos?

Dan

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
Respectfully, I think that the reason that some of you keep wanting to introduce extended drain potential into a wear metal mitigation conversation is that's the only arrow in your quiver.

Again--how does a Porsche which was neglected by not having its oil changed for four years or whatever prove that synthetics can reduce wear metals over dinos?

Dan

---

If it's only one arrow we've got, it's one more than you've got at this point. . .

It's not just "extended drain" per se, it's the cluster of other things (oxid resistance, shear stability, the CC edge, etc.) we've been talking about too. We bring these things up, because a discussion of UOA metal values alone is virtually meaningless in the context of the conclusions your're advocating (which is very different than, say, a sudden spiking of bearing metals would be in one individual engine).

Still unexplained:

1) How are you separating the wear-based part of the UOA result from the rest?

2) Just what do these numbers really mean, anyway? One engine shows an iron or lead value of perhaps 7, while a similar engine shows 14. Is the latter doomed to blow up twice as early, or is it perhaps going to also live a long, healthy life like its neighbor, just with a fraction of a hair width less metal in its bearings when the car it propels is banished to the scrap yard? Can you tell?

Now, as to the Porsche. Why do you continue to characterize it as a case of "neglect"? Again, that OCI is the one called for by Porsche when the spec-ed M1 oil is used. There was plenty of TBN left, and the metals were still consistent with break-in, nothing more or less. What does it prove, and how does it do so? It shows the extreme distances at which syns still perform beautifully. But perhaps more telling is the utter lack of dinos of any description at comparable age. If you'd like to confine the discussion to metallic debris, OK, please theorize for us what the levels would be with a dino at that age.

Shoot Dan, the fact that you've yet to answer the first question, and your reluctance to see the Porsche UOA for what it is, are making you look like the guy with NO arrows at all in your quiver.

The artillery duel continues. . .

 

[Winston]

Ive gotta say. You sure have stamina EK.

 

[Bio-T]

Dan and T-Bird, I visited your old home at the campfire and was interested in your posts to the good folks there on the subject of oil.

All I found were excellent photo's posted here before, but to recap, BMW, Dealer Service using the On Board Oil Change Indicator and it equals this:

Photos of Dealer Serviced BMW

 

[nickmckinney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
Dan and T-Bird, I visited your old home at the campfire and was interested in your posts to the good folks there on the subject of oil.

All I found were excellent photo's posted here before, but to recap, BMW, Dealer Service using the On Board Oil Change Indicator and it equals this:

Photos of Dealer Serviced BMW

---

Best part is where it stated this was done with BMW "Synthetic" oil at 9~14K intervals with only 88K on the clock

Really to me it looks like that engine never got to temperature, I would be looking for a stuck open thermostat among other things.

(Yes I like both dino and synthetic before anyone asks, am here just trying to find the truth in a mountain of, well you know, it would get moderated

)

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nickmckinney:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
Dan and T-Bird, I visited your old home at the campfire and was interested in your posts to the good folks there on the subject of oil.

All I found were excellent photo's posted here before, but to recap, BMW, Dealer Service using the On Board Oil Change Indicator and it equals this:

Photos of Dealer Serviced BMW

---

Best part is where it stated this was done with BMW "Synthetic" oil at 9~14K intervals with only 88K on the clock

Really to me it looks like that engine never got to temperature, I would be looking for a stuck open thermostat among other things.

(Yes I like both dino and synthetic before anyone asks, am here just trying to find the truth in a mountain of, well you know, it would get moderated

)

---

Cold, PCV system not functioning, antifreeze in the oil, or? I've seen old engines from the 60's and 70's almost that bad but I don't know how they got that way...