It's the million dollar question isn't it?
IMO, a UOA is only 1 tool. It's a tool that the average consumer can afford and utilize and the results seem to make sense. Lower the wear metals, the better. However, many compare ppm levels without regard to the +/- repeatability range for the test. OEM tests and other specs are not based UOA. If UOA were the holy grail, there's a lot of companies wasting their time and efforts with these tests when a cheap UOA would do the trick don't you think?
In many cases, without knowing the particle size, it's hard to even determine whether the wear is severe or not. I think having low wear metals is a positive thing, but range and type of wear have to be considered also. I'd rather have low wear in a UOA than high, but I know that most the differences we see are not that substantial.
I think this is also why we see some brands chosen as factory fill in some very high end automobiles. And where are the engine failures? I don't hear much about any.
From a GM Engineer:
Quote:
Since several GM engines are factory filled with Mobil 1 .... yes, we do test with it quite a bit. It has no issue with wear. Period.
Do you see Corvette, Porsche engines failing? This doesn't mean Mobil 1 is the best either....
Honda doesn't often request synthetic oils, in fact I don't think they ever have. In their first turbo engine, the only oil that showed no deposits - Mobil 1. The others failed and one barely passed. So who is playing catch up??? Is it marketing??
