UOAs of same car, but with thick and thin (xw-20)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Use an oil wt called for by the engine builder. After 200-300K(miles) determine how well your engine is performing. I've been doing this for decades and this is what determines the oil I use and the OCI I stick with.. It has worked well for me. UOAs may provide good info for determining the condition of the oil, like dirt, coolant, fuel.
 
girlfriends new in 13 2.5L Malibu sucked 3 qts + looking for the 4th qt of dexos I semi syn 5-20 oil in 3,000 miles, changed to 10-30 synthetic + only a qt in 10,000 miles, thats all i need to know!!! also oil consumption in DI engines can have other bad effects i am told!!! the 1/4 mpg that the thinner oil provides only helps in the EPA test for manufacturers + means little to others!!
 
Last edited:
Most folks here don't understand how/why to use UOAs.

They are tools. They are not perfect, but nothing is. UOAs are a great view of lubricant health; they are a direct view of lubricant conditions. UOAs are a good view of equipment health; they are an indirect view of equipment conditions. The difference being that while you can set condemnation limits for specific lubricant properties, (vis, FP, fuel dilution, TBN/TAN, etc), these do NOT, in any manner, assure you success or failure in wear protection. Just because vis may drop from shearing, wear does not automatically go up. Just because TAN crosses over TBN, wear does not automatically go up. Etc ... These characteristics are PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL CHANGE in wear rates; they are NOT an assurance of change already occurring.

However, you can accurately track UOA wear metals, you can understand wear rates (something that Doug Hillary's article mentions, but does not explain in detail). Wear metals in a UOA are a VERY good indicator or wear. They are NOT an assurance that you'll see or detect ALL manner of wear, though. The "normal" wear that is experienced in equipment can be easily tracked. The daily grind of typical uses all around the globe can easily and accurately be tracked with UOAs. However, catastrophic and acute events that happen suddenly will never be detected by UOAs until AFTER the event happens. Further, as most here understand, UOAs are limited in that they cannot see wear particulate above a certain size (about 5um). UOAs, when used on their own, offer a limited view of wear. UOAs, when used with other tools like PCs and other observations, offer a fuller view of wear. There are times a UOA can most certainly give insight to impending doom; other times they are blind and cannot see the changes coming. Again - UOAs are not perfect, but they are not, by any measure, useless.

How else can we measure wear? Well, we can use tear-down analysis for one. Unfortunately, that's silly expensive in both time and money. When you do a "tear down" of an engine, it's usually in the manner of an autopsy; trying to discern what is "wrong" with something; why do this if nothing is suspected to be "wrong"? No one is going to be able to afford the down time and costs involved in tearing down an engine/tranny/gearbox/diff just to see how well it's wearing every 10k miles. Additionally, tear-down analysis has disadvantages past those concerns of time and money. Tear-downs induce physical changes into the system that cannot be undone. When you tear down an engine, not much changes. But when you reassemble that same engine, you alter things like bearing clearances, etc. Some fasteners which are reused will stretch and not return to the EXACT same location, thereby changing the clearances. Or, new fasteners will be used, also changing the clearances. Are you going to reuse bearings? Use new bearings? Bearing inserts likely won't be set EXACTLY in the same position; they may become skewed, etc. You see, while I do agree that a "tear down" can be used to understand wear patterns, it's not in any way a practical means of understanding daily wear in equipment. It's not practical and it's not easily repeatable. Therefore, doing one tear-down may give you insight into wear, but unless you don't plan to reuse the engine by putting it back together, it's moot. TDs are NOT a practical means of assessing wear during the life-cycle of a piece of equipment. They are a means to diagnose wear at the end of a life-cycle. Once you take something apart, putting back together alters critical relationships that affect wear. So how do you know just how much is "wear" induced by the reassembly, versus wear that is natural to the operation? Answer is .... you don't!

Tear-down analysis can be done with a several different methods. There's physical measurements with hard gauges (microns, thousandths, etc); also soft gauges can be used. There's electron bombardment techniques. There spectro-light-emission opportunities. Etc, etc. All these methods have pros and cons. Some are very difficult to attain, but are reasonably safe with gauge R&R. Others are easier to achieve, but have poor R&R scores.

There are some SAE studies that do show UOA wear particles correlate well with particulate loading. There are studies that show UOA wear data does correlate with things like electron-bombardment measurements of wear. UOAs are accurate; UOAs are not fool-proof, but nothing is. Look - there is no "perfect" way to measure wear. Anyone who says that tear-downs are the "only" way to measure wear is misleading you. TDs are a good tool, but they have flaws and traps just like UOAs.

I choose to use the technique that offers a good ROI; one which can see most of the daily wear I'm interested in tracking, and does it quickly, for a low cost. That's UOAs.

You cannot run a few UOAs on your own vehicle and think you know "wear".
You can run a few UOAs and compare/contrast to macro data.
This is the difference between micro and macro analysis ....
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
There are two critical things needed to make a good UOA decision:
- the knowledge of how the data is to be viewed
- the quantity of relevant data needed to make an informed decision

Just because one can afford a few $15 UOAs, does not mean one automatically understands "wear".


As long as one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools one uses, you're in a "better" position than someone who does not understand, or even acknowledge, those differences.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Most folks here don't understand how/why to use UOAs.

They are tools. They are not perfect, but nothing is. UOAs are a great view of lubricant health; they are a direct view of lubricant conditions. UOAs are a good view of equipment health; they are an indirect view of equipment conditions. The difference being that while you can set condemnation limits for specific lubricant properties, (vis, FP, fuel dilution, TBN/TAN, etc), these do NOT, in any manner, assure you success or failure in wear protection. Just because vis may drop from shearing, wear does not automatically go up. Just because TAN crosses over TBN, wear does not automatically go up. Etc ... These characteristics are PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL CHANGE in wear rates; they are NOT an assurance of change already occurring.

However, you can accurately track UOA wear metals, you can understand wear rates (something that Doug Hillary's article mentions, but does not explain in detail). Wear metals in a UOA are a VERY good indicator or wear. They are NOT an assurance that you'll see or detect ALL manner of wear, though. The "normal" wear that is experienced in equipment can be easily tracked. The daily grind of typical uses all around the globe can easily and accurately be tracked with UOAs. However, catastrophic and acute events that happen suddenly will never be detected by UOAs until AFTER the event happens. Further, as most here understand, UOAs are limited in that they cannot see wear particulate above a certain size (about 5um). UOAs, when used on their own, offer a limited view of wear. UOAs, when used with other tools like PCs and other observations, offer a fuller view of wear. There are times a UOA can most certainly give insight to impending doom; other times they are blind and cannot see the changes coming. Again - UOAs are not perfect, but they are not, by any measure, useless.

How else can we measure wear? Well, we can use tear-down analysis for one. Unfortunately, that's silly expensive in both time and money. When you do a "tear down" of an engine, it's usually in the manner of an autopsy; trying to discern what is "wrong" with something; why do this if nothing is suspected to be "wrong"? No one is going to be able to afford the down time and costs involved in tearing down an engine/tranny/gearbox/diff just to see how well it's wearing every 10k miles. Additionally, tear-down analysis has disadvantages past those concerns of time and money. Tear-downs induce physical changes into the system that cannot be undone. When you tear down an engine, not much changes. But when you reassemble that same engine, you alter things like bearing clearances, etc. Some fasteners which are reused will stretch and not return to the EXACT same location, thereby changing the clearances. Or, new fasteners will be used, also changing the clearances. Are you going to reuse bearings? Use new bearings? Bearing inserts likely won't be set EXACTLY in the same position; they may become skewed, etc. You see, while I do agree that a "tear down" can be used to understand wear patterns, it's not in any way a practical means of understanding daily wear in equipment. It's not practical and it's not easily repeatable. Therefore, doing one tear-down may give you insight into wear, but unless you don't plan to reuse the engine by putting it back together, it's moot. TDs are NOT a practical means of assessing wear during the life-cycle of a piece of equipment. They are a means to diagnose wear at the end of a life-cycle. Once you take something apart, putting back together alters critical relationships that affect wear. So how do you know just how much is "wear" induced by the reassembly, versus wear that is natural to the operation? Answer is .... you don't!

Tear-down analysis can be done with a several different methods. There's physical measurements with hard gauges (microns, thousandths, etc); also soft gauges can be used. There's electron bombardment techniques. There spectro-light-emission opportunities. Etc, etc. All these methods have pros and cons. Some are very difficult to attain, but are reasonably safe with gauge R&R. Others are easier to achieve, but have poor R&R scores.

There are some SAE studies that do show UOA wear particles correlate well with particulate loading. There are studies that show UOA wear data does correlate with things like electron-bombardment measurements of wear. UOAs are accurate; UOAs are not fool-proof, but nothing is. Look - there is no "perfect" way to measure wear. Anyone who says that tear-downs are the "only" way to measure wear is misleading you. TDs are a good tool, but they have flaws and traps just like UOAs.

I choose to use the technique that offers a good ROI; one which can see most of the daily wear I'm interested in tracking, and does it quickly, for a low cost. That's UOAs.

You cannot run a few UOAs on your own vehicle and think you know "wear".
You can run a few UOAs and compare/contrast to macro data.
This is the difference between micro and macro analysis ....
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
There are two critical things needed to make a good UOA decision:
- the knowledge of how the data is to be viewed
- the quantity of relevant data needed to make an informed decision

Just because one can afford a few $15 UOAs, does not mean one automatically understands "wear".


As long as one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools one uses, you're in a "better" position that someone who does not understand, or even acknowledge, those differences.

Sweet Mother of Pearl, finally, someone that tells the truth.
 
01.gif
This NEEDS to be a sticky somewhere

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Most folks here don't understand how/why to use UOAs.

They are tools. They are not perfect, but nothing is. UOAs are a great view of lubricant health; they are a direct view of lubricant conditions. UOAs are a good view of equipment health; they are an indirect view of equipment conditions. The difference being that while you can set condemnation limits for specific lubricant properties, (vis, FP, fuel dilution, TBN/TAN, etc), these do NOT, in any manner, assure you success or failure in wear protection. Just because vis may drop from shearing, wear does not automatically go up. Just because TAN crosses over TBN, wear does not automatically go up. Etc ... These characteristics are PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL CHANGE in wear rates; they are NOT an assurance of change already occurring.

However, you can accurately track UOA wear metals, you can understand wear rates (something that Doug Hillary's article mentions, but does not explain in detail). Wear metals in a UOA are a VERY good indicator or wear. They are NOT an assurance that you'll see or detect ALL manner of wear, though. The "normal" wear that is experienced in equipment can be easily tracked. The daily grind of typical uses all around the globe can easily and accurately be tracked with UOAs. However, catastrophic and acute events that happen suddenly will never be detected by UOAs until AFTER the event happens. Further, as most here understand, UOAs are limited in that they cannot see wear particulate above a certain size (about 5um). UOAs, when used on their own, offer a limited view of wear. UOAs, when used with other tools like PCs and other observations, offer a fuller view of wear. There are times a UOA can most certainly give insight to impending doom; other times they are blind and cannot see the changes coming. Again - UOAs are not perfect, but they are not, by any measure, useless.

How else can we measure wear? Well, we can use tear-down analysis for one. Unfortunately, that's silly expensive in both time and money. When you do a "tear down" of an engine, it's usually in the manner of an autopsy; trying to discern what is "wrong" with something; why do this if nothing is suspected to be "wrong"? No one is going to be able to afford the down time and costs involved in tearing down an engine/tranny/gearbox/diff just to see how well it's wearing every 10k miles. Additionally, tear-down analysis has disadvantages past those concerns of time and money. Tear-downs induce physical changes into the system that cannot be undone. When you tear down an engine, not much changes. But when you reassemble that same engine, you alter things like bearing clearances, etc. Some fasteners which are reused will stretch and not return to the EXACT same location, thereby changing the clearances. Or, new fasteners will be used, also changing the clearances. Are you going to reuse bearings? Use new bearings? Bearing inserts likely won't be set EXACTLY in the same position; they may become skewed, etc. You see, while I do agree that a "tear down" can be used to understand wear patterns, it's not in any way a practical means of understanding daily wear in equipment. It's not practical and it's not easily repeatable. Therefore, doing one tear-down may give you insight into wear, but unless you don't plan to reuse the engine by putting it back together, it's moot. TDs are NOT a practical means of assessing wear during the life-cycle of a piece of equipment. They are a means to diagnose wear at the end of a life-cycle. Once you take something apart, putting back together alters critical relationships that affect wear. So how do you know just how much is "wear" induced by the reassembly, versus wear that is natural to the operation? Answer is .... you don't!

Tear-down analysis can be done with a several different methods. There's physical measurements with hard gauges (microns, thousandths, etc); also soft gauges can be used. There's electron bombardment techniques. There spectro-light-emission opportunities. Etc, etc. All these methods have pros and cons. Some are very difficult to attain, but are reasonably safe with gauge R&R. Others are easier to achieve, but have poor R&R scores.

There are some SAE studies that do show UOA wear particles correlate well with particulate loading. There are studies that show UOA wear data does correlate with things like electron-bombardment measurements of wear. UOAs are accurate; UOAs are not fool-proof, but nothing is. Look - there is no "perfect" way to measure wear. Anyone who says that tear-downs are the "only" way to measure wear is misleading you. TDs are a good tool, but they have flaws and traps just like UOAs.

I choose to use the technique that offers a good ROI; one which can see most of the daily wear I'm interested in tracking, and does it quickly, for a low cost. That's UOAs.

You cannot run a few UOAs on your own vehicle and think you know "wear".
You can run a few UOAs and compare/contrast to macro data.
This is the difference between micro and macro analysis ....
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
There are two critical things needed to make a good UOA decision:
- the knowledge of how the data is to be viewed
- the quantity of relevant data needed to make an informed decision

Just because one can afford a few $15 UOAs, does not mean one automatically understands "wear".


As long as one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools one uses, you're in a "better" position that someone who does not understand, or even acknowledge, those differences.
 
Originally Posted By: SirTanon

01.gif
This NEEDS to be a sticky somewhere

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Most folks here don't understand how/why to use UOAs.

They are tools. They are not perfect, but nothing is. UOAs are a great view of lubricant health; they are a direct view of lubricant conditions. UOAs are a good view of equipment health; they are an indirect view of equipment conditions. The difference being that while you can set condemnation limits for specific lubricant properties, (vis, FP, fuel dilution, TBN/TAN, etc), these do NOT, in any manner, assure you success or failure in wear protection. Just because vis may drop from shearing, wear does not automatically go up. Just because TAN crosses over TBN, wear does not automatically go up. Etc ... These characteristics are PREDICTORS of a POTENTIAL CHANGE in wear rates; they are NOT an assurance of change already occurring.

However, you can accurately track UOA wear metals, you can understand wear rates (something that Doug Hillary's article mentions, but does not explain in detail). Wear metals in a UOA are a VERY good indicator or wear. They are NOT an assurance that you'll see or detect ALL manner of wear, though. The "normal" wear that is experienced in equipment can be easily tracked. The daily grind of typical uses all around the globe can easily and accurately be tracked with UOAs. However, catastrophic and acute events that happen suddenly will never be detected by UOAs until AFTER the event happens. Further, as most here understand, UOAs are limited in that they cannot see wear particulate above a certain size (about 5um). UOAs, when used on their own, offer a limited view of wear. UOAs, when used with other tools like PCs and other observations, offer a fuller view of wear. There are times a UOA can most certainly give insight to impending doom; other times they are blind and cannot see the changes coming. Again - UOAs are not perfect, but they are not, by any measure, useless.

How else can we measure wear? Well, we can use tear-down analysis for one. Unfortunately, that's silly expensive in both time and money. When you do a "tear down" of an engine, it's usually in the manner of an autopsy; trying to discern what is "wrong" with something; why do this if nothing is suspected to be "wrong"? No one is going to be able to afford the down time and costs involved in tearing down an engine/tranny/gearbox/diff just to see how well it's wearing every 10k miles. Additionally, tear-down analysis has disadvantages past those concerns of time and money. Tear-downs induce physical changes into the system that cannot be undone. When you tear down an engine, not much changes. But when you reassemble that same engine, you alter things like bearing clearances, etc. Some fasteners which are reused will stretch and not return to the EXACT same location, thereby changing the clearances. Or, new fasteners will be used, also changing the clearances. Are you going to reuse bearings? Use new bearings? Bearing inserts likely won't be set EXACTLY in the same position; they may become skewed, etc. You see, while I do agree that a "tear down" can be used to understand wear patterns, it's not in any way a practical means of understanding daily wear in equipment. It's not practical and it's not easily repeatable. Therefore, doing one tear-down may give you insight into wear, but unless you don't plan to reuse the engine by putting it back together, it's moot. TDs are NOT a practical means of assessing wear during the life-cycle of a piece of equipment. They are a means to diagnose wear at the end of a life-cycle. Once you take something apart, putting back together alters critical relationships that affect wear. So how do you know just how much is "wear" induced by the reassembly, versus wear that is natural to the operation? Answer is .... you don't!

Tear-down analysis can be done with a several different methods. There's physical measurements with hard gauges (microns, thousandths, etc); also soft gauges can be used. There's electron bombardment techniques. There spectro-light-emission opportunities. Etc, etc. All these methods have pros and cons. Some are very difficult to attain, but are reasonably safe with gauge R&R. Others are easier to achieve, but have poor R&R scores.

There are some SAE studies that do show UOA wear particles correlate well with particulate loading. There are studies that show UOA wear data does correlate with things like electron-bombardment measurements of wear. UOAs are accurate; UOAs are not fool-proof, but nothing is. Look - there is no "perfect" way to measure wear. Anyone who says that tear-downs are the "only" way to measure wear is misleading you. TDs are a good tool, but they have flaws and traps just like UOAs.

I choose to use the technique that offers a good ROI; one which can see most of the daily wear I'm interested in tracking, and does it quickly, for a low cost. That's UOAs.

You cannot run a few UOAs on your own vehicle and think you know "wear".
You can run a few UOAs and compare/contrast to macro data.
This is the difference between micro and macro analysis ....
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
There are two critical things needed to make a good UOA decision:
- the knowledge of how the data is to be viewed
- the quantity of relevant data needed to make an informed decision

Just because one can afford a few $15 UOAs, does not mean one automatically understands "wear".


As long as one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools one uses, you're in a "better" position that someone who does not understand, or even acknowledge, those differences.



Well, it kinda already is. Dave has an article on the main page of the site, just like Doug does. The issue is that most people don't read those articles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top