What Company Does Everyone Use For Oil Analysis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
9,808
Location
New Jersey
What company should i use for oil analysis for my private car and customers cars? I am leaning toward blackstone for two reasons first i spoke to them about 8 months ago and they seem very helpful and real second they advertise on bitog. But if there is a warrantee issue should i use two companies for the same sample?
 
Dyson Analysis will probably give you the most in-depth interpretation, but it'll cost you 4x what blackstone charges.

I personally use Wearcheck because they provide data than blackstone, plus they're cheaper than blackstone.
 
Holt Cat SOS Fluid Analysis, I pick the kits up at my local CAT dealer and they're about $12. $8 extra if you want TBN.
 
blackstone. They support their community, their analysis is clear, they give you the raw numbers, they do extra services when requested.
 
They all stink, and provide questionable info to be honest.

So I'd just go with the cheapest one.
 
I support those that support our site; Blackstone.

Yes you can get data for less money at other places, but when I use Blackstone, I am supporting this site in an indirect manner. The "velocity of money" has distinct advantages.
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Pablo - You said:
"....more repeatable results."

How do you determine this? Details to support this would be great - thanks in anticipation!


Understand accreditation. I provided a link. Some labs are accredited, some aren't.
 
Hi,
Pablo - Oh I understand Accreditation very well indeed being one of the first person in OZ accredited as an "Inspector" in the ISO 9000 process in the 1990s!

However it is my understanding that UOA "repeatability" is a questionable subject to say the least. You have not supported your statement at all with facts at this point! I would suggest that Blackstone - a Sponsor here - would have similar repeatabilty ratios to the (non-sponsor) Lab you are promoting. Can you deny that??
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Pablo - Oh I understand Accreditation very well indeed being one of the first person in OZ accredited as an "Inspector" in the ISO 9000 process in the 1990s!

However it is my understanding that UOA "repeatability" is a questionable subject to say the least. You have not supported your statement at all with facts at this point! I would suggest that Blackstone - a Sponsor here - would have similar repeatabilty ratios to the (non-sponsor) Lab you are promoting. Can you deny that??


I agree what we read here as " UOA "repeatability" " is indeed very subjective - however the lab repeatability is not subjective. Since you brought up Blackstone (I did not), they are not an accredited lab - how can you know how close to correct they are? How accurate is their equipment? When was it last calibrated? Traceable to what standards? Repeatable and reproducible at each laboratory with interlaboratory standards? It makes a difference - if you can't understand that, then you are just being an antagonist. If these things aren't important - chose any lab you want.

Doug - you need to be more careful. The lab I am "promoting" is indeed a sponsor. How was I unclear on that?
 
Hi,
Pablo - In that case I defer to the Sponsor - I'm sorry!!

However the facts remain that you cannot endorse any better repeatability results from one Lab to another can you?.

In "end on end" UOA results when building a "Trend base" and when using the same Lab and lubricant it probably may matters little

The situation is very clear IMO - all Labs doing UOAs - except perhaps the Oil Company's own Labs - are subject to quite wide variances in repeatability

Costs and demonstrated service is one thing - repeatability is another IMO

I use Oil Companies QA controlled Labs to check their own lubricants. Over the years I have traced back many anomalies - let alone the repeatability factor - believe me there are many stories that abound in this area - but you already know that I presume?
 
People are instantly guided to Blackstone on BITOG - fine and good, they are a sponsor. But there is another choice.

And of course we - the folks who have been reading the UOAs posted for the last eight years have seen some very, very strange results here. P levels at 1/2 of what they should be. Ca numbers all over the map. Zn numbers completely wacky. It's funny, more from one lab than another. But that has nothing to do with accreditation - or rather just plain good lab practices, you think??.......I do like it that Blackstone has good listening skills and will gladly recalibrate and repeat the tests - great customer service.

I disagree that the lab makes little difference - I think knowing a lab is repeatable is important. Let's just agree to disagree. I want a lab to get it right the first time, others don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top