Ive seen some impressive uoa Regarding wear metals. Some dino seemed to performed better than some synthetics. So obviously its not a vut and dry synthetic has lower numbers than dino because that isnt aways the case. What besides the driving conditions and car contribute to great wear numbers. is there anything regarding oil chemistry that stands out as really doing a good job to reduce wear?
what is main contributor in low wear numbers
- Thread starter ram_man
- Start date
- Status
Considering that a $20 UOA is a pretty inaccurate indicator of wear, I don't know how you can draw any conclusions there one way or the other.
It depends on the operational conditions. Even a taxi in Manhattan jammed traffic, see better conditions than those of my car, with mostly short hops (lots of jams also) and everytime started cold from 2 or 3 days before.
Chemical for my case is a good light dose of moly, IMO.
Chemical for my case is a good light dose of moly, IMO.
Last edited:
I'd say mainly operational environment, so long as it's in an "ideal" environment including clean air, proper fuel/air mixture, minimal fuel-dilution, minimal insoluables, minimal blowby, clean oil, ignition systems working optimally, less start-stop/cold start driving, relatively stable thermal stress (e.g. highway speed for many many hours, etc.)
You'll get very nice UOA numbers that way.
Q.
You'll get very nice UOA numbers that way.
Q.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I sometimes think it's just luck of the draw with the engine someone gets. I'll see one car get a horrible UOA on "brand a" of an oil. Then there will be the exact same car,exact same oil,and it will have a perfect UOA.
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
I can't agree Merk. The GM 2.4 is spec'd for 5w30 and UOA show very high wear numbers, even when switching up a grade! On the other hand, the Honda and Toyota 2.4's produce excellent low wear numbers even when the oil has sheared and it a low 20 grade.
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
I can't agree Merk. The GM 2.4 is spec'd for 5w30 and UOA show very high wear numbers, even when switching up a grade! On the other hand, the Honda and Toyota 2.4's produce excellent low wear numbers even when the oil has sheared and it a low 20 grade.
Without trended data accumulated from the engine the data is collected from wear metals are absolutely irrelevant and are meaningless.
Wear cannot be tracked with a 30 dollar used oil analysis no matter what anyone here thinks. It's a fools errand and gleans nothing.
You absolutely need to establish trends. It's a must. And 1 or 2 used oil analysis do not establish a trend. You need lots of them to establish a trend then compare subsequent data against this data.
So wear metals in a single used oil analysis are not accuse for alarm. And high wear metals aren't either.
For example every used oil analysis I've seen come from a chev 5.7l has iron over 20ppm. Yet those engines are legendary in their ability to last forever.
High wear metals doesn't necessarily equate to high wear.
I suggest reading everything Doug hillary has graciously shared with us as far as data is concerned. You'll learn very quickly that wear metals in a single used oil analysis doesn't mean much and does not establish a trend.
The key here is trended data,for your particular engine.
Wear cannot be tracked with a 30 dollar used oil analysis no matter what anyone here thinks. It's a fools errand and gleans nothing.
You absolutely need to establish trends. It's a must. And 1 or 2 used oil analysis do not establish a trend. You need lots of them to establish a trend then compare subsequent data against this data.
So wear metals in a single used oil analysis are not accuse for alarm. And high wear metals aren't either.
For example every used oil analysis I've seen come from a chev 5.7l has iron over 20ppm. Yet those engines are legendary in their ability to last forever.
High wear metals doesn't necessarily equate to high wear.
I suggest reading everything Doug hillary has graciously shared with us as far as data is concerned. You'll learn very quickly that wear metals in a single used oil analysis doesn't mean much and does not establish a trend.
The key here is trended data,for your particular engine.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
Nope.
Tbn and tan are the biggest contributor to wear metals in oil and it's because if the oil has run too long and has become acidic it's eating away at the metals inside an engine and artificially inflating wear metals where no wear actually exists.
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
Nope.
Tbn and tan are the biggest contributor to wear metals in oil and it's because if the oil has run too long and has become acidic it's eating away at the metals inside an engine and artificially inflating wear metals where no wear actually exists.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
Wrong.
The No.1 contributing factor is the viscosity. Get the correct viscosity for the engine - not necessarily the owner's manual viscosity - and your wear numbers will be low.
Wrong.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Without trended data accumulated from the engine the data is collected from wear metals are absolutely irrelevant and are meaningless.
Exactly. Chasing numbers is just that - chasing numbers. If you want good numbers, a bunch of 3,000 mile OCIs trended in a good engine would probably do it, but that would be pretty pointless. You could also bribe Blackstone to give you good numbers on your report, since that would accomplish just as much.
Without trended data accumulated from the engine the data is collected from wear metals are absolutely irrelevant and are meaningless.
Exactly. Chasing numbers is just that - chasing numbers. If you want good numbers, a bunch of 3,000 mile OCIs trended in a good engine would probably do it, but that would be pretty pointless. You could also bribe Blackstone to give you good numbers on your report, since that would accomplish just as much.
I think of uoas as a measure of how the oil is wearing ,not the engine. Granted you might find a major engine problem with a uoa but not the rate of wear. I think engines that spend more time at temperature hold up better than those that do more thermal cycling, but i don't have a way to back that up, just my opinion. Think about over the road diesels and even taxis that continuously run.
I'd agree with the viscosity argument, with the caveat that 'thicker' is not necessarily better as many posters would imply. Most wear occurs at start-up, and the 0W-xx grades really shine such applications.
Use of higher viscosity index (ie: more expensive) base stocks usually allows a 0W-xx oil to outperform at the higher end of the temperature spectrum as well. Although additives can be important, I'd suggest that starting with the highest quality / viscosity index base-stocks is the factor that is going to produce the most consistently low wear numbers and highest quality product.
Use of higher viscosity index (ie: more expensive) base stocks usually allows a 0W-xx oil to outperform at the higher end of the temperature spectrum as well. Although additives can be important, I'd suggest that starting with the highest quality / viscosity index base-stocks is the factor that is going to produce the most consistently low wear numbers and highest quality product.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
For example every used oil analysis I've seen come from a chev 5.7l has iron over 20ppm.
That's because the oil is too thin. Run 10W-40 in that same Chevy Silverado truck engine and watch the iron number drop in half.
For example every used oil analysis I've seen come from a chev 5.7l has iron over 20ppm.
That's because the oil is too thin. Run 10W-40 in that same Chevy Silverado truck engine and watch the iron number drop in half.
When they run to a million kilometers without a rebuild, I don't care if the UOA says 100 ppm every oil change. It doesn't matter. GM also didn't want 10w-40 in their stuff, ever.
Originally Posted By: Garak
GM also didn't want 10w-40 in their stuff, ever.
GM didn't want 10W-40 in their stuff ever but my Cadillac 425 sure loved 20W-50.
GM also didn't want 10w-40 in their stuff, ever.
GM didn't want 10W-40 in their stuff ever but my Cadillac 425 sure loved 20W-50.
I think they may have actually allowed for 20w-50 over some years, but if you ever put anything like that in the taxis, he'd have bent you across his knee for a paddling.
He liked ILSAC 10w-30s just like you, Merk.
He liked ILSAC 10w-30s just like you, Merk.
Originally Posted By: pitzel
I'd agree with the viscosity argument, with the caveat that 'thicker' is not necessarily better as many posters would imply. Most wear occurs at start-up, and the 0W-xx grades really shine such applications.
That quote deserves some evidence...bring to the table the evidence that 0W results in lower wear...please.
I'd agree with the viscosity argument, with the caveat that 'thicker' is not necessarily better as many posters would imply. Most wear occurs at start-up, and the 0W-xx grades really shine such applications.
That quote deserves some evidence...bring to the table the evidence that 0W results in lower wear...please.
Probably more important than oil, engine design / driving conditions are the big contributors in low wear numbers. If you have a well designed engine (mostly Toyota/Honda, even some well known GMs) + a pretty relaxed driving condition (mostly highway w/ not too cold/hot ambient temps), you're much more likely to have lower wear no matter what oil you choose.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Question
