3 diff. labs with samples taken frm the same bott

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
When Dyson was a member here way back when, he used Blackstone.


The last time I had a Dyson "analysis + interpretation" done was back in July 2008, when the price was still $60. I sent my sample to his designated lab, MRT Labs in Houston.


I just had Terry do an analysis in October 2009 and the sample went to MRT in Houston.
 
This is the lab that Terry Dyson uses:

http://mrtlaboratories.com/

I have seen the ISO certificates for his lab. He has done a lot of work with MRT and has tweaked the processes and procedures they use to gain state of the art acuracy of data. Once he receives the data he will interpret it for you and possibly offer some recommendations on how you can improve the performance of your equipment. I'm not aware of any other lab that will do this for you, except Blackstone (if you pay for the Dyson interpretation). He is comfortable using Blackstone data because he is very familiar with their work and their procedural limitations (just like many of us are). The bottom line with Blackstone from my experience (I still use them from time to time) is that their data has been consistent for me, but limited in its usefullness. They also don't interpret the data for you.
 
I throw in my 2 cents in:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1281798

I did the same with Blackstone, Dyson (which were sent to MRT) & Oil Analyzers Inc.

In the end 2 conclusions:
1. Different labs = different methods = different results (ie, apples to oranges comparison)
2. Pick a lab and stick with it only, so that you can do trend analysis.

When you post OA's, make sure you include the lab information also.
 
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
2. Pick a lab and stick with it only, so that you can do trend analysis.


I know that seems to make sense but in my case some of the #s seemed to vary too much from the true. And so I felt uneasy even at looking at trend #s from this lab in question.
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
2. Pick a lab and stick with it only, so that you can do trend analysis.


I know that seems to make sense but in my case some of the #s seemed to vary too much from the true. And so I felt uneasy even at looking at trend #s from this lab in question.
21.gif



Time to try someone else.

There is some operator error at the lab.

I had Dyson do some UOA's... when he got the results back, something didn't seem quite right to him, so he asked MRT to run it again, then he got results that he was expecting. Maybe go direct to Dyson??? Kinda pricey but his analysis & second set of eyes are worth the extra money.
 
My results from the same sample:
MRT / Oil Analyzers
Alum 4/11
Copper 14/9
Calcium 2576/3495
Oxidation 56/37
Nitrate 13/24
Fuel 1.25/ Other results in my side-by-side reports were acceptable differences in my book.

I really expected less variance above with the professional lab testing Industry standards they're supposed to practice in general.

Trending is important and have done with one of those labs for many UOA's. Big question is, how do I know my trending has been with true results or inaccurate ones. At some point that can make a big difference in reporting the true 'accurate' health of my engine. Isn't that why we do this in the first place? Is for me...
 
in defense of Blackstone, they saved one gas engine for me from a coolant leak. no more than what often is considered normal evaporation from a cooling system noticed in overflow tank drop.
ran a UOA because the engine is a know intake manifold leaker. i did not tell them the engine block type
showed high levels of K and Na. they warned on coolant leak.
pulled the intake manifold and several chunks of seal were damaged in areas where it normally fails
one saved engine
sent in followup UOAs which showed steady cleaning improvement in K and Na.

quit using them because of all the negative reports here and other forums and their missed analysis. also very sloppy poorly written reports.
what can one expect for a $20 lab analysis?

have several diesels that I will not trust to questionable oil analysis.
 
This pretty much convinced me to not even bother with a UOA. I've been noticing quite a few issues lately with BL UOA's.

Anyone ever use AMSOIL's UOA test kits? Are they any good?
 
Originally Posted By: shpankey
.....

Anyone ever use AMSOIL's UOA test kits? Are they any good?
Their kits are fine. Oil Analyzer's is who they use.
 
Since VOAs are so unrelible, we can assume UOAs are equally unreliable. People on BITOG make decisions on which oil to use all the time based on which oil has a few PPM lower this or that. Coolant and fuel is something else.
 
Last edited:
I stopped performing UOAs due to cost/benefit analysis. I might do one more before my warranty is up to detect coolant, but that's about it.
 
I love this stuff and the science would be great if dependable!? This test and the others that are revealed here tells us all this is a waste of our time. And to those who are trying to suggest its better than it looks please open your eyes. I'm so tired of people trying to tell me I can't trust my eyes! The labs are consistently undependable according to everyone here who has tested their accuracy. Maybe the only thing usable is looking for coolant, maybe. I'll just use a high quality synthetic and watch the coolant jug, save $$$
 
Quote:
Since VOAs are so unrelible, we can assume UOAs are equally unreliable. People on BITOG make decisions on which oil to use all the time based on which oil has a few PPM lower this or that. Coolant and fuel is something else.



I don't think they are unreliable per se. If you get three lab results with some variability, then average them out and use that as a baseline for trending.

Folks, it's the trending that matters, not one or two lone VOA's or UOA's.
 
Looks like the real "snake oil" is the bogus analysis being done. Sorry, but those numbers are so far out of whack, that I'd never waste my money on one, nor rely upon them.
Get the oil that meets your specs, grab the bottles you love, and change it when you think it needs changing.
I have to laugh at all the guys that call expensive oils a waste yet will send in oils to get analyzed with these kinds of results.
I know my money is better spent on the oil.
 
Yes, if you cannot trust the oil analysis labs to do a good job it is just a waste of money and time to send in oil samples. Although I am glad some people do. How are we supposed to be able to compare motor oils?

I think because of the VOAs and UOAs that have been done we do notice some trends. For example, it seems like a lot of samples where Mobil 1 oil was used indicate high iron. That might be important if accurate. Maybe Pennzoil Ultra or Castrol Edge or Valvoline Synpower might be preferrable.

I hope people keep sending in samples. Find the best lab and use it.
 
Just another thought. You can also check what the manufacturer of an oil says. For example, if you go to the Mobil 1 site and search for 'chart' you will find percentages of additives for various Mobil 1 oils. You have to believe the manufacturer of course.

But UOAs would still be needed to see how an oil actually does in service.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I hope people keep sending in samples. Find the best lab and use it.


For sure posted UOAs are the lifeblood of this site.

But it may be still be the case that one cannot obtain consistent accurate #s for $20 from the most popular lab.

So *if* this is true I wonder what the price point needs to be to get a quality i.e. accurate UOA?
21.gif
 
But with all of the VOAs and UOAs that are sent in we can still spot trends. When a lot of UOAs seemed to indicate high iron levels in Mobil 1 samples I became kind of leery of using Mobil 1. I started checking out Pennzoil Platinum. I don't know if there is really a problem with Mobil 1 oils or not. Maybe only with some of them. I am still going to try the HM Mobil 1 oils. I think they have a better additive package anyway compared to the regular stuff.
 
+1 I suspect additive separation as the cause. Additive separation is a know issue. For a virgin sample, one needs to mix very well to obtain valid results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top