Wear is wear...right?

[buster]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317
So basically the only thing that a UOA is good for is looking at the condition of the oil, and whether it is still serviceable or not? It has no direct indication of the actual engine's condition?

From what I have gathered here, the "analysis" of the wear metals that a lab provides are more/less educated guesses and may not be real? The data is real, but their interpretation of the data is a guess?

Hmmm, guess I ought to quit viewing UOAs as importantly as I have been. My "nicely wearing engine" UOAs don't seem as neat now...



I think it's great to use once a year to check the overall health of an engine. It's not as valuable for comparing wear metals between different oils.

I would still want low wear metals in a UOA, but wouldn't be alarmed about small differences between oils. There are limitations with what a $30 UOA can tell you.

 

[wcbcruzer]

Let's not completely bash UOA's. As long as you collected the oil sample properly they can still tell you a lot about what going on in the engine.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Regarding the statement:
"From what I have gathered here, the "analysis" of the wear metals that a lab provides are more/less educated guesses and may not be real? The data is real, but their interpretation of the data is a guess?"
I review over 200 engine oil analysis a day and believe me, the data is "real" and interpretable as fact.. If one does a single oil analysis, then a book cannot be written from a single result.. However, regular oil analysis using proper capture procedures does indeed provide excellent, concrete data..

As an aside and just for discussion: Last month I did an Excel data sort for November oil analysis for a large coal mine. Of the 200+ analysis results, 41 of the results indicated an iron level of from 0 to 10 ppm. The 41 engines were all CAT and large, as in CAT D11R's, 777's, etc. It is indcredible to see a CAT D11R with an iron reporting at 4 ppm, with a 300 hour oil drain interval. Correspondingly, this mine enjoys engine life 2 to 3 times that of the norm and CAT projections.

Another mine with similar equipment, similar operating conditions, does not have a single engine with less than 10 ppm iron. They use the same mineral based diesel engine oil but do NOT use CAT air and oil filters, do not have the same high level of PM care and the ingoing new oil is not as clean as the other mine. (a bit sloppy in all areas) Correspondingly, engine life is higher than the norm but at a 1.5 +/- level. With engines costing $100,000+ and machine costs at 1 million +, uptime and maximization of engine life is key..

Thus every component of a program has to be in place to realize maximum life. And from my experience, iron levels are an excellent indicator of engine/component life as it is the most prevalent wear metal....

George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[buster]

Quote:
iron levels are an excellent indicator of engine/component life as it is the most prevalent wear metal....


This is one reason why many dislike Mobil 1. It shows higher Fe levels.

 

[BigBadf350]

wear is not wear.

a syn. oil use in the correct weight/formulation and application does infact produce lower wear #'s. its not an exact science but it needs to be an exact fit.

the wear patterns are diff. with syn. and dino oils.

another thing i have noticed that with some syn. UAO's you dont see the broad balance of spectral wear that a dino shows. sometimes a syn. will have lower wear metal of one type and higher of another vs. a dino. this leads to the belief that some parts may not be protected as well with a syn., again depending on appliction/formulaion/weights.

the fact syn. wins over dino in all areas other than wear is undisputable.

 

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted By: GeorgeCLS
Regarding the statement:
"From what I have gathered here, the "analysis" of the wear metals that a lab provides are more/less educated guesses and may not be real? The data is real, but their interpretation of the data is a guess?"
I review over 200 engine oil analysis a day and believe me, the data is "real" and interpretable as fact.. If one does a single oil analysis, then a book cannot be written from a single result.. However, regular oil analysis using proper capture procedures does indeed provide excellent, concrete data..

As an aside and just for discussion: Last month I did an Excel data sort for November oil analysis for a large coal mine. Of the 200+ analysis results, 41 of the results indicated an iron level of from 0 to 10 ppm. The 41 engines were all CAT and large, as in CAT D11R's, 777's, etc. It is indcredible to see a CAT D11R with an iron reporting at 4 ppm, with a 300 hour oil drain interval. Correspondingly, this mine enjoys engine life 2 to 3 times that of the norm and CAT projections.

Another mine with similar equipment, similar operating conditions, does not have a single engine with less than 10 ppm iron. They use the same mineral based diesel engine oil but do NOT use CAT air and oil filters, do not have the same high level of PM care and the ingoing new oil is not as clean as the other mine. (a bit sloppy in all areas) Correspondingly, engine life is higher than the norm but at a 1.5 +/- level. With engines costing $100,000+ and machine costs at 1 million +, uptime and maximization of engine life is key..

Thus every component of a program has to be in place to realize maximum life. And from my experience, iron levels are an excellent indicator of engine/component life as it is the most prevalent wear metal....

George Morrison, STLE CLS


What engines were in the machines you speak of? 3508's, 12's, 16, 24's C18's?

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Of the 41 engines with iron less than 10 ppm, most were the low stressed engines as in CAT 16 motor graders, 988 front end loaders, 777 haul trucks (3508), however, some were the D11R's with the same 3508 as in the 777's but with much higher work loads/fuel flows. So, the predominant engine is the 3508. (8 cylinder, overhead cam, electronically controlled fuel injection, a fairly sophisiticated engine, and a good one!)

However, the roles of the 3508 can be from very easy (777 application) to extremely difficult (D11R slot dozing). Thus the same engine can live to 30,000 hours in a 777 and is very optimum to make 15,000 hours in a D11R bulldozer.

George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[D-Roc]

THe other thing about 3508's to keep in mind is that their are more than one option for oil pan size/capacity. So, their is the chance that those engines had the large sump and the oil changed regularly, thus having lower iron. More oil cpacity = longer service life for fluids.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Yes, but from my experience the rate of wear is directly related to the amount of fuel burned per hour in a working situation. i.e. the 3508 in a triple 7 may only be using 12 gpm while the same entine in a D11R is burning 28 gpm.. A significantly higher work load, bearing stress, etc. And it directly relates to iron/wear generation, from my experience.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[1sttruck]

"Last month I did an Excel data sort for November oil analysis for a large coal mine. Of the 200+ analysis results, 41 of the results indicated an iron level of from 0 to 10 ppm. The 41 engines were all CAT and large, as in CAT D11R's, 777's, etc. It is indcredible to see a CAT D11R with an iron reporting at 4 ppm, with a 300 hour oil drain interval. Correspondingly, this mine enjoys engine life 2 to 3 times that of the norm and CAT projections."

The following is perhaps not 'fair' as you probably didn't included other points in your statement for brevity, but the leaps in observation to cause in the statement above would make Evil Kineival (speling ?) jealous. The engines mentioned probably have something like a 12k to 15k hour major service interval, which with 300 hr samples would be 40 to 50 samples per engine, but you seem to suggest that you looked at 1 sample per engine that was below 10ppm Fe and 'that proves why the mine'e engines last 2x to 3x normal'. Normally one would look at break-in, extended wear, and the onset of wear out ('bath tub curve') over the lif of an engine, attempt to correlate Fe levels with conditions of operation like changes in oil/filters/operating conditions/etc., and then if comparisons are desired to make sure that samples of the other conditons are run at the same time while trying to keep other conditions the same. At the conclusion of the study one would then see if the original question can be addressed by the quality of the data, and then see if the results address the specific question. This is different than looking at one current sample for an engine and drawing conclusions about previous engine life, conslusions based upon 20% of the samples.

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: BigBadf350
wear is not wear.

a syn. oil use in the correct weight/formulation and application does infact produce lower wear #'s. its not an exact science but it needs to be an exact fit.


the fact syn. wins over dino in all areas other than wear is undisputable.



So your telling me that a synthetic showing 25ppm of FE is better than a conventional showing 10ppm?

That's my main hangup...synthetics provide better wear numbers?? Look through the UOA forum and they don't have any better numbers than the conventionals???????????

I have also seen UOAs that wear metals increased using a synthetic, and decreased once conventional oil was once again used???

I think the whole "synthetics are better" argument is vague.

 

[deeter16317]

I guess what I'm getting out of this is the whole trending thing...I guess I'll keep doing UOAs for a few more miles (to make sure my OCI is going to work), then quit to once a year or so, to check the oil itself, and not so much read as far into it as engine wear.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317
I guess what I'm getting out of this is the whole trending thing...I guess I'll keep doing UOAs for a few more miles (to make sure my OCI is going to work), then quit to once a year or so, to check the oil itself, and not so much read as far into it as engine wear.



Sounds like a resonable plan. As far as wear metals, conventional oils tend to show very low wear, for whatever reason. I don't fully understand/trust oil analysis for comparing oils for engine wear after all I have read.

 

[kgb007stb]

I was always under the impression that if OCI’s were kept reasonable, the wear rate of a given engine was also dependant on how well contracted it is. Is it correct to assume that no oil, no matter how good it is, will decrease wear particulates on engines that shed too much material. Could this shedding be from mis-alligned parts that will wear our fasted due to bad QC.

 

[deeter16317]

Originally Posted By: kgb007stb
I was always under the impression that if OCI’s were kept reasonable, the wear rate of a given engine was also dependant on how well contracted it is. Is it correct to assume that no oil, no matter how good it is, will decrease wear particulates on engines that shed too much material. Could this shedding be from mis-alligned parts that will wear our fasted due to bad QC.



I'm going for a no OCI on the current rig...changing only the bypass and adding that makeup oil every 10k. That's why I was wanting to see about wear versus results of a UOA. Now that I see a UOA won't really show what I thought they will, there's no sense wasting $$ on getting a UOA done all the time (I know the oil will hold up, based on UOAs).

I guess if the UOA shows the oil is suitable for continued use, then that is all that really matters. You really can't help destruction caused by poor engineering/poor quality control.

 

[D-Roc]

Really all a UOA is good for is tracking any problems before they get too big- for the average diesel pickup owner. Just too make sure wear is not too high, coolant, fuel, soot etc...

 

[kgb007stb]

Originally Posted By: D-Roc
Really all a UOA is good for is tracking any problems before they get too big- for the average diesel pickup owner. Just too make sure wear is not too high, coolant, fuel, soot etc...


Precisely my type of thinking, if an engine sheds an X amount of material, and suddenly starts shedding 2x material, or coolant is present, that is a great indicator from trend analysis that something is going on. Now one has time to decide whether to sell the ride or catch the problem before it becomes destructive.

You can’t ask much from a $20 analysis, but some day if I’ll ever drive an expensive car, Dyson will get my business. I still think that professional interpretation is the way to go as they can look at the whole picture, draw on data from past experience, and make a scientific conclusion as to what is really going on.

 

[BigBadf350]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317


So your telling me that a synthetic showing 25ppm of FE is better than a conventional showing 10ppm?

That's my main hangup...synthetics provide better wear numbers?? Look through the UOA forum and they don't have any better numbers than the conventionals???????????

I have also seen UOAs that wear metals increased using a synthetic, and decreased once conventional oil was once again used???

I think the whole "synthetics are better" argument is vague.




no 25PPM is not better than 10. the reason you seen increased #'s with syn is because it is not the perfect fit i talked about.

given the very same engine, driving conditions and habbits,ect. if you find a perfect match is will show better #'s, not worse.

you cant compare #'s from the same model engine when looking at dino vs. syn., it has to be the exact same engine to be totally controled to the point of getting true data.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

I am not "writing a book" with my statement of the one snapshot (of 250 samples!) for a month and that it should be put in stone, confirming absolutely that 2X engine/component life would result. This is why I so dislike posting or sharing real world information on this site! One gets nit-picked to death for even sharing real world data... I am not selling any oils, lubricaants or services, just trying to share.....

Irrespective, I was drawing the correlation that this mine DOES indeed experience engine life 2X the CAT norm... And that other mines I work with do not have even ONE engine oil analysis reflecting an iron level of less than 10 ppm and do NOT experience 2X the norm engine/component life... Thus, I would draw a faily conservative correlation with this mine's use of high quality engine oil combined with quality filters, excellent preventive maintenance and attention to detail and maximum engine/component life. And it just so happened to be confirmed, in my view, in the snapshot of October, 2007.... It will NOT be published and at this point I am sorry I mentioned it on this site........
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[kgb007stb]

Makes perfect sense, I guess for my little car I do an amateur oil analysis to make sure that everything is sound and fine. Catching an early coolant leak sure saves lots of headaches. Would I own a fleet of expensive machinery oil analysis is sure the way to go.

GeorgeCLS, what is the sump capacity on these engines, I am sure a Wally World 5qt jug would not be enough for these monsters.