What might we be overlooking?

[nicrfe1370]

Forgive me if this isn't the best choice of sections of the forums for my question. Moderators, please move this post if there is a better spot. My question is; what very relevant facts might we be overlooking, in regards to how an oil functions in a car, by making our judgements based almost entirely on UOA's? I'm not talking about fuel mileage, but rather, serious longevity issues like sludge buildup or corrosion of metals by additives in the oil. Personally, I would sacrifice a little more wear on a UOA (not a lot, maybe 50% more, so 10ppm becomes 15ppm) if the oil with the lower wear left a residue on all surfaces that limited heat transfer and sludged the motor, and the higher wearing oil did not. Looking for your thoughts.

 

[Al]

My simple minded guess is that if the TBN, water, solids, antifreeze, Viscosity and other additives are within spec (in the UOA) things are cool. I guess you are referring to a different composition of oil thet allows more wear in exchange for less deposits.

 

[Motorbike]

I think this post might be about a cleaner motor with use of a synthetic over a dino . I get both a internaly cleaner engine and better wear numbers with synthetic . I don't know what all the fuss has been about other than possibly some have compared oils and analysis's here and tried to equate performance of them to how one oil might act in their engine which ain't gonna happen in real world . The better synlubes can be a win win , just not for everybody though . To add , the different metalurgy used in various engines today and examination of might not be of some participants better expertise .

 

[TR3-2001SE]

I think you are overlooking the reading on a UOA that might tell you your engine may be slugging. The insolubles tells you something may be amiss even if your wear metals are great. Also Oxidation and Nitration numbers can tell you this. I am no expert but I believe Terry might be able to see a sluge engine using UOA before it happens. My own opinion is that if you use a first class synthetic and do an auto-rx clean from time to time you will never have a sluged engine. Of course I still plan on a UOA for Terry from time to time to back-up this.

 

[satterfi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TR3-2001SE: My own opinion is that if you use a first class synthetic and do an auto-rx clean from time to time you will never have a sluged engine.

---

I have trouble thinking A-Rx is useful when running an oil like RL, Delvac 1 or Amsoil.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by satterfi: I have trouble thinking A-Rx is useful when running an oil like RL, Delvac 1 or Amsoil.

---

I question that too, but since it is recommended for newer engines, I'm going to run some in my LT-4 Corvette engine. Afterwards I will disect the oil filters that is on the engine now and the two that will used in the clean and rinse process to see if the Auto-Rx gets anything more than normal oil change crud out of the engine. The engine has 41,000 miles on it now and the top of the head around the valves looks like brand new untouched aluminum, so it will be an interesting test. Also no leaks or oil consumption, and it runs as good as an engine can run. Results in about 3 months. The power steering system is another story. It had black toasty smelling fluid in it. I cleaned it up before adding Auto-rx so I should be able to observe if the Auto-Rx does anything beyond what changing fluid does. I'm going to do the tranmission (manual 6-speed) and differential too. They don't have any problems and the fluids look good, but I just got the car used a few months ago and am going to change the fluid so I will know for sure what's in them. I don't really expect to see any differences in the engine, transmission or differential, but the filter disections on the engine should prove to be interesting. The claims are that it gets manufacturing crud out of of new engines so extra crud should show up in the filters if it does anything more than routine oil changes do.