Used Oil Analysis- Good or Useless?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by jsharp:
-*-*-*-*There's no question that the differences are measuable. What I'd really like to know is the long term result. Probably Terry, TS, Mola and some others have a good idea of this, but I think a lot of rest of us wonder if the differences we're looking at are the difference between 300,000 and 500,000 mile engine life...

Here here, I too would like to KNOW.
Just My own opinion; think it can relate to these numbers, but it will more likely be at least 3-5 "X" these numbers.... with a lot of maintenance and ?"luck"? maybe much more.
My real opinion, if you are willing to sink a "chunkola" lot of dough into the car/truck, then you can let it almost live for-ever.
You will pay for the UOA's one way or another, either now, and get less out of the motor or later and get more miles but paying for the UOA's.
If you don't mind putting a lot of effort into the common repairs to keep the car going, without a rebuild I see that you can go a million maybe several million miles without rebuild starting on a fresh and new engine... Now, what is usually going to happen is the car will get stolen/ wrecked/ or several other things like the Tranny, Rear, and Rack and computer chip, and some other problem you may takle awile finding will hit back to back or all at once, and the cost to repair all these at the same time, most will just junk the car (motor still gooood)....
UOA's are properly best for the industrial and commercial user how has a fleet of trucks, and they do budgets (most people don't) and they plan on letting their equipment fail in "X miles or X years". JMHO>!
 
This thread addresses a reasonable question; however, relative value debates are interesting. Someone will drop $100-$200 on a night out which, unless it creates some special memories, stays with us (at least the meal) for what, 24 hours? Or another will spend $2000 on an auto sound system when a $500 one will do just fine...and then another will ask "Should I spend $20-$40 for a UOA, which can 'protect' the major item in a $20,000-$60,000 expenditure (most cars are NOT 'investments')?" In the larger scheme of how much we spend on things of really transitory value, what is $20-$40? Not dissing anyone...just asking what I believe is an important question.
 
quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
"Should I spend $20-$40 for a UOA, which can 'protect' the major item in a $20,000-$60,000 expenditure (most cars are NOT 'investments')?"

Well, I certainly hope you get blood work at least every year in the same manner that you would PROTECT ( which is really questionable) your depreciating asset "THE ENGINE" of your beloved toy. Very similar in what a blood work up and UOA provides, and unfortunatly, in many cases too late to do anything about it
 
Gosh, all this work...and all I've done for the past 14 years to my 1990 Mazda Protege (SOHC, 5spd manual tranny) is change the Mobil 1 every 6-7K miles along with the Mobil 1 oil filter. And with 201,000 miles on the odo it's still getting 35mpg on the highway (Texas, AC on) and is still on the original clutch and tranny.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Spector:

quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
"Should I spend $20-$40 for a UOA, which can 'protect' the major item in a $20,000-$60,000 expenditure (most cars are NOT 'investments')?"

Well, I certainly hope you get blood work at least every year in the same manner that you would PROTECT ( which is really questionable) your depreciating asset "THE ENGINE" of your beloved toy. Very similar in what a blood work up and UOA provides, and unfortunatly, in many cases too late to do anything about it


Spector,

I looked at the excerpt you pulled from my post and I read and re-read your response. I am not sure that, given the intent of my post, I understand the intent of yours.
 
Originally posted by TooSlick:
[QB] The last time I saw data, about 40% of commercial truck fleets and 80% of industrial customers were using oil analysis.
-------------------------------------------------
One thing I'd like to add is that I work for a railroad, and railroads don't change the oil on their locomotives until the oil analysis shows the need to change it. Of course they don't have odometers, so periodically when the locomotives are brought into the shop for inspection, an oil analysis is made. They hold as much as 300 gallons of oil, so an oil analysis is the most economical way to change the oil. And if the oil level happens to get to the "add" mark, it takes a 55 gallon drum of oil to bring it up to full.

Ronnie
 
Simple priorities. Do you afford yourself (your body) the same level of protective health that you are willing to spend for your engine?
 
quote:

Originally posted by Spector:
Simple priorities. Do you afford yourself (your body) the same level of protective health that you are willing to spend for your engine?

I know in my case the answer is no. I keep myself in good shape, but I just don't go to the doctor for checkups or physicals. I definitely take better care of my oil (by doing UOAs) than I do of my own self. But then again I'm only 33, so most doctors would think I'm nuts if I went in for a full checkup every 6 months or even every year for that matter.
dunno.gif
 
I have to say I get a big kick out of the guys on the diesel pickem'up boards yackity-yakin' about their 300k-capable vehicles . . . and then you learn they've had a new one every two-three years (and are not running hot-shot).

No, given a decent vehicle, running one 12-15 years is not simply do-able, but eminently practical. At that point the vehicle has bottomed out in value -- and the dealerships and many parts stores remainder their stock of parts for that application. And continued emissions-compliance becomes problematical.

The point is to keep it in like-new condition: no rebuilt parts, only new . . . and don't wait until they fail, replace them before that (a great thing about the Internet: finding out the approximate age/mileage of failure in order to plan). Don't skimp, treat the system (be it brakes, A/C, what-have-you) as a system, not a component-here-and-a-component there, and keep it as new. Buy better than oem if you can confirm a part is such. Add extra electrical grounds (they're all deficient in this); etcetera.
Garage it (have it detailed once/twice year); keep some highway miles on it, give it new stereo or whatever to keep interest and pride up.

The value of lubricating fluid analysis is to 1] find the best brand/viscosity, etc; 2] trend the motor/trans for wear patterns peculiar to you; and, 3] keep the maintenance budget and schedule ready to accept the cost of a new trans at, say, 180k.

If something minor breaks, fix it right away, don't let things pile up. And who said you can't replace an unbroken, but grit-etched windshield at 115k. Etcetera.

Todays sophisticated digital drivetrain controls make this a whole lot easier than in the days of points and crude carbs (not all were). Not to mention gas-charged shocks, radial tires, disc brakes, better-handling and so on.

(I can find a low-mileage solid rear axle in a salvage yard if need be, not that maintenance is to be skipped here. Or another drivers seat. Or another antenna. Or another . . . .

Only Detroit and ego keep us from maximizing the use of our money. In twenty-five years -- and only two vehicles -- I save not only the cost of a third vehicle (and depreciation) but the income generated by investing the savings. One helluva lot more!!!) With a reasonable rate of return, plus no depreciation loss, one can almost drive that second vehicle for free.

Plan, schedule, budget. UOA gives me some mighty significant info on the most expensive item in the vehicle. And, if it doesn't wear down, in turn I am not wearing down every other system in the vehicle to compensate.

(Whoops, this went on way too long.)

[ November 16, 2003, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: TheTanSedan ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:
If something minor breaks, fix it right away, don't let things pile up.

Tansedan,
can you come and be my boss.

All of our maintenance has to fit inside our maintenance "budget". The profit level is decied by our shareholders, then our maintenance buget is that left between the fixed costs (coal and licencing), and the number that the shareholders have chosen as the profit.

So we start fixing only those defects which directly affect generation, and on and on.

Then they have the gall to ask why our defect backlog is increasing (their bonus at stake).

When I point out that we are now sacrificing our preventative maintenance budget to address critical defects, it falls on deaf ears. We have planned shutdwons, where we do no work, as we spent the entire budget on generation risking defects.
 
Oh, and most important point is that they want to stop us from carrying out condition monitoring, as they see no result from it.

I point out that if it's working, then you don't see a result that's immediately obvious.
 
Terry has the right read on this, as well he should. Those of us who have seen HUNDREDS of analisis, know that you can tell a lot, and should use them mostly to monitor maintenance and set up pro-active maintenance programs. Examples:
1. last month I identified glycol in a 2002 Toyota pickup. Owner took it in and the dealer tightened the head bolts. Problem is over with very little damage.
2. The analisis I posted the other day on dirt intake will serve, as it has for several others to change out their maintenance procedures or people.
3. I've had a two year test going with a Chevron product in a Waukesha natural gas engine, with another product in the identical side-by-side generator that shares the load. For 8,000 hours we documented 75% less oil consumption, 7 to 9 ppm of iron, less nitration and oxidation compared to the twin with 21 to 23 ppm of iron (higher on other wear metals as well) They took the engine apart for the top overhaul and had to replace bearings on the other engine and not on the Chevron engine. The owner insisted in getting to 12,000 hours before putting eliminating the other oil (supplied by a "friend"). Last month, at 9,000 hours - after continuing to show 21 to 23 ppm of iron instead of only 8 or 9, that engine blew. EVERY 1000 hours we were demonstrating a 250% more wear on the other oil. (The plant has now been shut down for over a month waiting for $15,000 in parts to come from the US)
Bottom line, analisis is only as good as the interpretation of it and the actions taken by the owner.
 
Bottom line is it's worth it if a guy like Terry is doing the report. You need someone who knows what they are talking about and who has seen thousands of reports. It's a very inexpensive preventative maintenance tool.
wink.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:
-*-*-* Add extra electrical grounds (they're all deficient in this); etcetera.
-*-*-*-


How do you tell if you have enough in the first place and how do you add more to your system?
What are the benefits?
 
For the price of a UOA, I'll change the oil 3X instead.
That way I can spend most of my money on beer and women.
The rest I can waste.
 
I wish I had a good link on "vehicle electrical bonding [or continuity]"; essentially, one wants the electrical flow back to the electrical generating source (alternator) to be as good, as nearly efficent, as the one carrying electricity to the component. Although I haven't yet searched that realm, I would imagine that marine-oriented Web boards would be helpful (full-time cruising; live-aboards; passage-makers/trawlers, etc).

12-negative ground vehicles use the body and/or frame as a common ground. That is, the wiring carries the juice outwards, and the body/frame carries it back [the ground wire should really be the same gauge as the positive wire].

Headlights, HVAC systems, power seats, heated seats and windshields, "big" stereos, are all heavy amperage users and benefit by dedicated grounds (as do aftermarket ignition systems, HAM radio transceivers, etc). One may also consider the use of relays to operate the component if not already so equipped (headlights, usually).

There tends to be resistance at every point in the system -- be it a termination, a splice, etc -- and time and corrosion increase this resistance.
OEMS use wiring that meets a certain minimum; and the lack of a negative harness (in conjunction with the "positive" harness) makes for easy trouble-shooting, cost & weight reductions, etc.

But not for long-term, trouble-free perfomance (10 or more years here in Texas; shorter, perhaps in some rust-prone areas).

Todays cars are, obviously, highly sensitive to minor fluctuations a 1965 Chrysler, Ford, what-have-you would have never noticed in its operation.

My favorite story of the "horrors" of computer-controlled cars was one about the owner of a (newly-downsized) 1985 Cadillac Seville. The car would cut out and die, and the dealer and manufacturer reps were having a helluva time replicating it. In the end (dozens of attempts over 6-months or more) someone found that -- between two of the brains -- a wire carrying a signal would "overheat" (too much resistance) in crossing over the trans hump/firewall junction. The problem was an electrical drop of

one-half of one millivolt .

I could not imagine ever wanting to try to trace out anything remotely close to that.

When I wrote that most cars are deficient in this regard, one need only take a look at any item which is isolated from the common ground (radiators on many cars); or the undersized cabling going from firewall to engine block; the battery negative only grounding the body, but not itself to the engine block; etc.

The addition of some 4-ga cables can go a long ways for the above [underhood]; and a dedicated set of grounds for high-amp use components isn't too hard to figure out. No paint under connections, use of star washers on sheetmetal (with a dab of Loctite); covered with an electrical supply house conductive grease -- used sparingly -- that will prevent corrosion (not dielectric grease). Cleaning connections, keeping air and moisture out, ought to be part of ones annual checklist/to-do list.

Ideally, there would be but ONE ground on the engine to connect these to; best nearest the alternator. And, if possible, not ever going without a constant 12V source when possible (such as when switching batteries).

Same goes for adding accesories: do it properly, with a high-quality, aftermarket junction box instead of adding wires to the battery.

A little overkill can go a long way, IMO. Sort of like extending transmission and axle vents to a point above where water can get into those assemblies in flooded conditions. Peace of mind.

Sort of like a UOA for trending use and preventing small problems from becoming large ones in the quest titled, "Driving It Forever".

[ November 17, 2003, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: TheTanSedan ]
 
Widman; you state "1. last month I identified glycol in a 2002 Toyota pickup. Owner took it in and the dealer tightened the head bolts. Problem is over with very little damage."

Was this a routine UOA that you performed on this engine for a customer or was it because he suspected a problem because he was losing coolant? The UOA simply confirmed what you already knew for the most part. And, very little damage, probably none but we will never know without a teardown.

And, you will know that it is fixed simply by not having to replace coolant or you could spend another $18-$30 for another UOL.

How does 99% of the automotive world ever live without these UOA???????
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dr. T:
The point of this post is that while UOA's are an indicator, they shouldn't be taken as gospel to determine appropriate wear or oil change intervals. Again, the 3mp oil study....why aren't we all doing 18k oil change intervals with M-1 5-30??? Can someone tell me they're convinced to switching to 18k from 3k/3mo. changes???

Good point.

In my case although I am playing the devil's advocate on this thread, I have used UOA to establish the intervals, from 5000-12,000 depending on the car/driving etc., but do I need to keep doing them once this has been established, probably not.
 
I know I'm not alone in here in saying that I find used oil analysis to be a great form of entertainment. There is something very exciting about getting another oil analysis report for your car, those who don't do it would think it sounds crazy but it's true.

And then when you've managed to lower your wear numbers through the changes you've made (either with driving habit changes, viscosity change, brand change, air filter or oil filter change, etc) it becomes even more satisfying to see the fruits of your labor. Nobody knows for sure how long your engine will last, but you can assure yourself that if you lower the wear numbers, it will last longer. Maybe we are worrying over nothing when we see 1 or 2ppm more iron or lead here or there, but I guess there are worse ways to be spending our time.
smile.gif
 
Patman, your absolutely right. Hey, atleast your honest about it. I find it entertaining myself. I know the reality is that I could run any oil and get very good life out of my engine but I still like to obtain the lowest wear possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top