Philosophy of UOA's?

[jimbrewer]

I did a few UOAs to determine if I could trust the IOLM on my then-new car. Turns out I can, although there's not a huge cushion there once you get into the single digits.

I now spend my hard-earned OCD dollars on changing the oil in the diff and the transmission fluid.

Turns out I was all wet even there; it costs a bunch (according to other posters) to replace the water pump on my F-150. I should obsessively change that, instead:

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by ThugStyle
Hi
Just so we are all clear, what is the purpose of UOA's?
Some have said that they only use them to see if coolant or fuel (or something else) gets into the oil so that they can address any malfunctions. I think I saw an interview of two men from Shell/Pennzoil who said this much at some kind of race event for their car. The guy interviewing appeared to be an average Joe with a YouTube channel. I tried to find the link but could not. He was asking about seeing this and that metal % in the oil, and the two guys were like, "No, we don't really use it that way, we look for coolant or fuel to be in there so we can go fix any leaks."

If you think I'm lying about this, I guess you can use twitter or phone to contact Pennzoil.

So can someone explain why people turn to them for anything other than what those two guys described? And how exactly would you justify doing so?

It seems to me that UOA's would not really be accurate for metal present anyways because the heavier parts fall to the bottom of the oil, so you may get a higher or lower reading for something depending on if the oil sat for a while or not before collecting a sample. Like using the ladle at Souplantation to dig deep in the soup container.


Good statement, only thing you are wrong about is "heavier parts fall to the bottom"
The procedure for taking a UOA sample is to get the oil up to full operating temperature, the oil is well mixed up when you take the sample and as far as metals go we are talking about the PPM of metal in the oil.

So UOAs are mostly for fun, to see how much metal wear is showing up and yes, valid reason is to check for coolant and fuel.

Using UOAs and VOAs and commenting on the make up of the oil itself is a joke in here. People looking for a lot of zinc/phos/Calcium/boron ect is laughable, a VOA checks for a TINY amount of compounds that have been around for 50 years or more and doesnt represent compounds that oil manufacturers have used to replace those outdated ones.
So some manufacturer like Red Line can produce an oil loaded with stuff from decades ago and sell it for $13.00 a quart all the while, something like Supertech may provide the same protection for $3.00 for the everyday driver.

This is not to say that their arent some specialized engines that need these old compounds, I repeat, I am talking about for everyday drivers.

Its funny, engines now outlast the vehicles and the engine components of the typical everyday car and truck using any API oil including $2.00 a quart oil but for fun, some are still looking for a Holy Grail. Thats ok, as long as they respect this statement, there is no proof or intelligent reason to use an expensive oil with the same API as a cheap oil as it will not make a difference in the life of the engine for the everyday driver.

 

[Onetor]

Originally Posted by KnicksGiants
Originally Posted by Onetor
Imagine, we are paying these labs to track our data and sell it. The best studies are done by the customers that pay in the real world. UOA establishes a baseline and are fun!

Racing teams do not use them. They do physical measurements.

According to Dave at Redline, they are not accurate. I would ask Molekule?

I believe that you need hundreds of them for accuracy for statistical analysis.


Wouldn't they have everyone ever who did it,in data base


That was my point. Just didn't state in a clear manner. My bad.

 

[DGXR]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
People here use UOAs as tea leaves, and imagine you can them to divine the differences between oils and filters.
Really they're just a way to track trends. Establish a baseline and you'll know what is normal; when something is outside of normal it should prompt you to investigate, whether it be fuel, coolant trace, silicon, or wear metals.


Originally Posted by StevieC
I use them to determine trends, determine if a lubricant is up to the task, determine a safe OCI based on my engine, driving pattern, fuel, oil used. I also use them periodically to make sure coolant leaking into the oil and that fuel dilution remains a non-issue from worn components as time goes on.
They are a tool, not the be all end all.


For the typical BITOG user, these replies pretty much sum up the answer. For a single engine, it takes several consistently sampled UOAs to determine wear trends among the various metals. Once the trend is established (with an acceptable variance, give/take a few PPM) then the user can see if wear metals are increasing or decreasing and rectify an issue before it severely damages or destroys the engine. (Fuel and coolant in the oil can be seen in the blotter test, no analysis required.)

I also agree that UOAs are overkill for the person who does not qualify for severe service, and who services their vehicle at the recommended intervals using quality materials. But people still do them because they provide interesting information about the motor, and reviewing the report can be "fun." I got a Blackstone sample kit a few years ago and I have intended to use it, but just can't quite get myself to spend the $35 because that will buy another synthetic oil/filter change, with money left over.

 

[StevieC]

Yeah I establish a trend after break in to see what the norm is over about 3-4 UOA's and to check to make sure there is no coolant and what the safe OCI is and add a buffer to that.
Then I do periodic to check for coolant and to check to make sure there isn't a huge spike in ppm (hundreds of ppm or more) in an area indicating something is going wrong.