YouTube UOA Testing of Amsoil SS vs Penzoil Ultra Platinum on Ram 2500 w/6.4L HEMI

[hemioiler]

Based on copper alone, I'd say this is a "win" for the PUP and there's no need to pull 30 samples to reasonably conclude that. The copper went up and the SS went in and it came back down when the SS came out. Cause and effect.

This is ironic, defending the use of UOA's and then getting the copper "element" wrong

As pointed out all over this forum many times, the copper is from leaching (cooling system, not valve train), and not wear, but it's not necessarily a win for an oil that shows less of it. The esters cause the leaching, so you'd have to prove that having more esters in your oil is contributing to more wear, and this is the exact opposite of what is actually happening. Esters reduce friction and wear, and are excellent solvents. They also help lower the pour point of an oil. All excellent characteristics of a high quality motor oil.

So while defending the use of UOA's you actually fell victim to the very warnings pointed out here.

 

[Astro14]

This forum gets tiresome sometimes, when people bash and bash and bash information posted by the likes of Speed, when them in themselves have nothing substantive to offer. Just complaints.

We get the continual "oil analysis reports are useless to determine wear", but nobody offers anything better.

It's easy to be a critic. Blah blah blah, this test is meaningless. The test methodology is wrong, ect, etc. Yet, nothing better if offered.

Opinion is more valuable to many of these critics than science. And even if the science has flaws, or room for improvement, science is better than raw opinions, which is all many on this forum have to offer.

Oh please - you have yet to post any “science” and you dislike those who don’t agree with you.

Now, you’re just bickering.

Take a break.

 

[Hohn]

This is ironic, defending the use of UOA's and then getting the copper "element" wrong

As pointed out all over this forum many times, the copper is from leaching (cooling system, not valve train), and not wear, but it's not necessarily a win for an oil that shows less of it. The esters cause the leaching, so you'd have to prove that having more esters in your oil is contributing to more wear, and this is the exact opposite of what is actually happening. Esters reduce friction and wear, and are excellent solvents. They also help lower the pour point of an oil. All excellent characteristics of a high quality motor oil.

So while defending the use of UOA's you actually fell victim to the very warnings pointed out here.

Higher copper in oil is bad. Full stop. It might be *offset* partially by the supposed benefits of the ester.

Wear is beside the point. Copper is bad because of its contributions to piston coking. Frankly there’s no oil on earth good enough to prevent a bore scar from rock-hard piston carbon scraping against a liner. Or worse, from piston overheating caused by piston deposits catalyzed by copper in oil.

Wear is not the more important oil quality— cleanliness is. Even basic red jug max life with 5k intervals will keep an engine at a very low wear rate. But it will not run as clean, and that’s the more important factor because fail modes related to deposits— not wear per se— are the thing by far most likely to end the life of your engine.

Rings get stuck before they get worn out. And mostly they wear out BECAUSE the are stuck.

I’ve told the story here before. The 2010 Cummins X15 during development was having piston scuffing failures due to coking deposits caused by elevated copper levels from leaching braze metal from the oil cooler. Before production launch, the oil cooler was converted to aluminum (vs stainless) to eliminate the copper leaching that was causing the piston deposits that caused the engine failure. We conclusively demonstrated this with ABA testing— reinstalling the stainless lube cooler instantly spiked copper levels and would create piston coking where it wasn’t previously.

It’s possible that elevated copper isn’t as problematic in other engines. But when there’s weak or inconclusive contrary evidence, there’s no way I’m going to err on the side of ignoring a known failure mode I’ve seen in engine development.

 

[kschachn]

Higher copper in oil is bad. Full stop. It might be *offset* partially by the supposed benefits of the ester.

Wear is beside the point. Copper is bad because of its contributions to piston coking. Frankly there’s no oil on earth good enough to prevent a bore scar from rock-hard piston carbon scraping against a liner. Or worse, from piston overheating caused by piston deposits catalyzed by copper in oil.

Wear is not the more important oil quality— cleanliness is. Even basic red jug max life with 5k intervals will keep an engine at a very low wear rate. But it will not run as clean, and that’s the more important factor because fail modes related to deposits— not wear per se— are the thing by far most likely to end the life of your engine.

Rings get stuck before they get worn out. And mostly they wear out BECAUSE the are stuck.

I’ve told the story here before. The 2010 Cummins X15 during development was having piston scuffing failures due to coking deposits caused by elevated copper levels from leaching braze metal from the oil cooler. Before production launch, the oil cooler was converted to aluminum (vs stainless) to eliminate the copper leaching that was causing the piston deposits that caused the engine failure. We conclusively demonstrated this with ABA testing— reinstalling the stainless lube cooler instantly spiked copper levels and would create piston coking where it wasn’t previously.

It’s possible that elevated copper isn’t as problematic in other engines. But when there’s weak or inconclusive contrary evidence, there’s no way I’m going to err on the side of ignoring a known failure mode I’ve seen in engine development.

Can you explain how the copper atoms contribute to deposit formation? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of this.

 

[Pablo]

Can you explain how the copper atoms contribute to deposit formation? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of this.

Same here

How can copper Especially at the ppm level cause piston deposits?

I would like to know what some formulating chemists say.

 

[mbacfp]

Interesting information...been using PUP 0W-40 in the 6.2 Superchargered Hemi. Guess less leaching of Copper is better than more?

Was actually considering Schaeffer's 0W-40, which was formulated for the 6.2 over PUP 0W-40. Appreciate the post OP...Interesting info.