Valvoline vs. Pennzoil Conventional (PYB)

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
It's pretty amazing that UOAs can be used to compare one brand of oil vs another, yet when you bring up that UOAs look pretty much the same, in synthetic vs conventional thread, all of the sudden UOAs are not reliable. Which one is it?

People will use whatever info they can, as long as it supports their view, facts and logic be [censored].


Depends on the person, but yes, in general I agree with your premise.

 

[Radman]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Prove it. Show me multiple long term UOA reports over many years, then the tear-down data and measurements to prove that a "normal" UOA with metals in the 1 and 2 digit ppm's can accurately measure wear.

Otherwise, you're just trolling.


If a UOA shows an oil shearing out of grade don't you think that oil is unacceptable in the application?

Yes, I have torn down engines with wiped bearings due to sheared viscosity especially in N2O power adders.

What is a trolling?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Radman
Originally Posted By: cchase
Prove it. Show me multiple long term UOA reports over many years, then the tear-down data and measurements to prove that a "normal" UOA with metals in the 1 and 2 digit ppm's can accurately measure wear.

Otherwise, you're just trolling.


If a UOA shows an oil shearing out of grade don't you think that oil is unacceptable in the application?

Yes I have torn down engines with wiped bearings due to sheared viscosity especially in N2O power adders.

Now what is a troll?


No, not necessarily. Many oils sheer by nature, it doesn't make them bad. Mobil 1 0w40 is an example, yet it is used extensively in race and endurance applications as well as high HP factory cars like Chrysler's SRT vehicles, and those from Mercedes.

When one steps into the realm of non-stock applications, then that changes the game entirely. As an engine's lubrication needs may change dramatically with the addition of a power adder. But at that point it is up to the person making the modifications to be well enough versed in the application they are working on to know whether to compensate for the increased loads by specifying an oil with a higher HTHS for example.

That is well beyond the scope of this conversation however, and definitely lends no real credence to the value of UOA's in the context implied in the beginning of this discussion. If anything, it falls in-line with my point regarding the necessity for tear-downs, as without a tear-down at the end, you have nothing to make that final comparison; nothing to draw a conclusion from!

 

[ottotheclown]

Yes tear down, how could you not agree?? Consumer Reports did just that with the rebuilt motors in taxis in NYC back in the late 90s. Guess what was found?? More at 5 .

 

[Radman]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: johnsmellsalot
I'm wondering which oil returns better used oil analyses.


You can't compare UOA's on different oils.

/Thread


The original question is which oils have better UOA's. My statement was I only used UOA's for determining acceptable viscosity shearing. It is completely academic when it comes to PPM of metal wear. Any oil that has a high shear rate is unacceptable as it can lead to bearing failure. Viscosity is part of the UOA and most people tend overlook it for a couple of PPM's of metal. Therefore you can compare UOA's primarily in the TBN, TAN, & VISC.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Imo,its really hard to say. Different engines seem to have the most effect on uoa`s more than oil brand/type. Some engines have a ton of wear metals no matter what oil is used,while others are completely opposite. I feel proper viscosity and keeping it changed/clean is what really matter when it comes to engine longetivity.

 

[Boss302fan]

I would stick with PYB...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Radman
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: johnsmellsalot
I'm wondering which oil returns better used oil analyses.


You can't compare UOA's on different oils.

/Thread


The original question is which oils have better UOA's. My statement was I only used UOA's for determining acceptable viscosity shearing. It is completely academic when it comes to PPM of metal wear. Any oil that has a high shear rate is unacceptable as it can lead to bearing failure. Viscosity is part of the UOA and most people tend overlook it for a couple of PPM's of metal. Therefore you can compare UOA's primarily in the TBN, TAN, & VISC.


Fair enough. I just find the yardstick most use to determine which one is "better" is "wear" metals. The criteria you outlined are the same ones I use personally, so I agree with you in that respect 100%.

 

[[RT] ProjUltraZ]

I think saying that UOAs are worthless without exhaustive fleet studies and teardowns is just as wrong as saying UOAs are definitive proof of an oil's ability. Both are extreme views and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted By: Radman
Although it is every mans perogative to compare and purchase whatever they want.

that's sig material right there

 

[91344George]

Originally Posted By: cchase


That's the point. But, according to Merkava the problem with every engine on this forum is that they need to step up at least 1 grade of oil. If they only did that they would remove all wear from the equation and until then, they're destroying their engine.

Huh?..... Baulderdash!

Guess you must work for the oil companies.

 

[fdcg27]

Both have returned really good UOAs.
The Valvo is a little weaker on TBN and contains no molly.
As to whether UOAs are a good measurement tool, it is amusing to see some of those members who disparage them as tools either to measure wear or compare oils obsess over their own UOAs on various oils.
On a UOA basis, I'd say that little separates these two oils.
I don't think you'd find much difference in actual use either.