Vette LT4 396 stroker, GC 0W30, 1200 miles

[Michael SR]

Here is some information on this engine. I changed the rod bearings right after draining this oil. The engine had ~2000 miles at this point, and had been beat hard in both racing and countless dyno runs. Given that the bearings were "bad," and that there were visible metal flakes in the oil i drained out, i'm really surprised at how good this report is. oh, and this is using a K&N 3002 oil filter.

code:

---

Al 2

Cr 1

Fe 14

Cu 28

Pb 13

Mo 40

Mn 1

K 2

B 6

Si 55

Na 4

Ca 3614

Mg 101

P 812

Zn 957





SUS 100C 65.8

flash 395

fuel
insolubles trace

---

i'm not worried about the silicon, it's from RTV, i'm pretty sure. for the use and low miles, i think this report looks really good. i am worried, however, that i don't think i would have realized the bearings were worn just from this report. i would have assumed it was still breaking in.

EDIT: blackstone labs, no TBN.

-michael

[ June 03, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Michael SR ]

 

[427Z06]

Michael SR,

I'm glad you posted this. I've been saying for some time now that one has to be careful in assuming that an UOA is the last word on engine wear and condition. You just provided another data point in my defense.

Back to your situation, if you decide to check the main journal-bearing clearance with your engine in the car, I've seen it done with plasti-gauge and a hydralic jack to support the crank as you check each bearing, but never done it this way myself. Let us know how you make out. Best of luck to you.

 

[Michael SR]

sorry, i should have mentioned this fill came right after a fill of redline. i assumed that's where the moly came from. also, the engine makes over 450hp, burns no oil, doesn't smoke at all, has excellent compression and leak-down, and the cylinders look perfect. so i don't think there's a ring problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:
And how do you know that it would not have been interpreted properly? Just because you can't? (not that I could either) Just saying your conclusion on UOA is not valid.

---

i said nothing about how other people would interpret, only how i would. but, consider that i'm not very likely at all to put more faith in the interpretation of some unknown character of unknown experience, education, and knowledge, making assertions via an internet forum. when i make comments, for instance, i am still relying on other people to use their own brain. i'd hate to think someone counted on mine!

-michael

 

[Michael SR]

makes one wonder how the LSx engines can pour so much copper into the oil.

-michael

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

Well consider that wear is not necessarily linear but multiply this by 3 for a more realistic interval and you have Fe=42ppm, Cu=84(this is not an LS1!!), Pb=39, and Mo=120 AT ONLY 3600 miles. I'd say this would rank as one of the worst UOA ever posted here.

Unless you used a moly assembly lube perhaps? I'd also say your rings are not wearing the best either.

And how do you know that it would not have been interpreted properly? Just because you can't? (not that I could either) Just saying your conclusion on UOA is not valid.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Troxell:
Well consider that wear is not necessarily linear but multiply this by 3 for a more realistic interval and you have Fe=42ppm, Cu=84(this is not an LS1!!), Pb=39, and Mo=120 AT ONLY 3600 miles. I'd say this would rank as one of the worst UOA ever posted here.

---

Good point Jason, however since this is the first 1200 miles, and the amount of wear metals found in a UOA seem non-linear in this range of miles, coupled with how this engine was used during the interval ("beat hard in both racing and countless dyno runs") I don't know how you would interpret this kinda' UOA. Maybe someone like Terry is able interpret this UOA, but I'll admit I don't have enough knowledge, experience and access to the proper database.