Can this be right?? Copper at 964ppm!

[Bill Plock]

I just got the results from two oil samples sent in for analysis – one to Oil Analyzers - one to Oil Guard. Oil Analyzers reports CU at 964ppm

but OilGuard says 30ppm.

Normally I wouldn’t be sending two samples but the OilGuard Bypass filter came with a free kit and I already had some Oil Analyzer kits. Other key parameters, FE and SI ppm are also quite different as follows:

Parameter, OA, OG
COPPER, 964, 30
SILICON, 8, 22
IRON, 34, 14
CHROMIUM, 1, 3
LEAD, 3, 8
TIN, 0, 2
ALUMINUM, 4, 4
NICKEL, 0, NT
SILVER, 0, NT
BORON, 6, NT
SODIUM, 0, 7
MAGNESIUM, 116, NT
CALCIUM, 3614, NT
BARIUM, 0, NT
PHOSPHORUS, 1209, NT
ZINC, 1309, NT
MOLYBDENUM, 0, NT
TITANIUM, 0, NT
VANADIUM, 0, NT
POTASIUM, 0, 4
FUEL %, VIS@100C, 14.07, 15.5
WATER %, 0, SOOT/SOLIDS %, 0.1, GLYCOL, NEG, NEG
TBN, 9.11, 8.7
OXIDATION, 7, NT
NITRATION, 5, NT
F-SOOT, 0.01, NT

NT - Not tested

These samples were taken with 9393 miles on my 2003 Chevy 2500HD Duramax Diesel and 4362 miles on the oil. Oil was AMSOIL 15w40 synthetic. Prior to this I had changed the oil at 1kmi, 2kmi and 3kmi with DELO 15w40. I sent a sample to OilAnalyzers from the 3kmi Delo change. Cu was 24ppm, Si 22ppm and Fe 9ppm. At the 3kmi change I put in AMSOIL 15w40. At 5k I installed an OilGuard Bypass filter and refilled with fresh AMSOIL 15w40. Oil samples were taken mid stream while draining.

If had only sent a sample to Oil Analyzers I would REALLY be worried.

Anyone have any thoughts on why there is such a difference between the reports on the same oil sent to two different test houses?
Is this common? Is there a certification process for Oil Test Houses? I’m thinking about doing double samples for a while until I get correlation in the results.

Hmmm… Wait a minute

… this is getting expensive - even for the ultra-anal… Synthetic oil, dual tests, bypass filter and three fuel filters...

[ July 13, 2003, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Bill Plock ]

 

[Pablo]

Go here:

My lab comparison (also at Spacebears oil shoot out)

Same thing prettier format

I would say typo or something - what did the lab say? Did you ask for a retest?

[ July 13, 2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Pablo ]

 

[GMCDURAMAX]

I'M WITH PABLO, I'D ASK FOR A RETEST.

OFF TOPIC
I HAVE THE DURAMAX WITH THE OILGUARD ALSO. I HAVENT HAD THE OIL TESTED YET BUT I WILL SOON. I'LL BE SURE TO POST IT HERE. I'M USING 5W-40 MOBIL DELVAC 1 (SYNTHETIC) IN IT.

WHAT KIND OF FUEL FILTERS DO YOU HAVE? I HAVEN'T ADDED ONE YET. I'M WAITING ON SOME FUEL ANALYSIS RESULTS.

 

[Bill Plock]

Thanks everyone for the feedback! I'll call OA today regarding a retest.

Pablo, very interesting that your results with OAI had relatively higher CU as compared to the others (though not 964!)

Also, it's interesting to note the recommendation on the OA report for the high copper, which is as follows:

"Copper level has increased since last sample (it was 24ppm w/1000 miles on DELO). Note: Copper Level is High - Possible from normal engine break-in. Copper Level is High - Possibly from lube oil cooler. Recommend resample at next interval"

This seems like a "canned" response. I wonder if it's canned for High CU in general or just for the Duramax (?) I remember reading that initially high copper is not unusual for the Duramax. Anyone know the exact source? Is the Oil Cooler heat exchanger (that's part of the Oil Filter adapter) made from copper?

I think I'll do another sample at about 3kmiles. I'm currently running Rotella 5w40 Synthetic and have enough for another change before I switch to DELVAC-1. I couldn't resist buying the Rotella when Wal-Mart was raising the price last Fall - I felt like I was getting a last minute bargain. I have also noticed that the oil pressure is a few psi lower when hot with Rotella 5w40 as compared to the Amsoil 15w40 AME.

GMCDURAMAX,
Regarding fuel filters I have a Stanadyne FM100 30 micron pre-filter, followed by the OEM RACOR (4-5 micron) and a Baldwin 1 micron BF7635 pics. I also have an AC Delco Lift Pump pics with a needle valve by-pass pressure regulator (the FM100 is in the by-pass loop). There have been extensive discussions on Duramax fuel filtering over at "TheDieselPage" Duramax forum. The net consensus is that the Dmax's common rail high pressure (23,000psi) injection system needs ultra clean fuel in the 5 micron range to prevent pre-mature injector damage (injectors cost approx $500 each)

[ July 14, 2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Bill Plock ]

 

[widman]

Assuming the two samples were taken at the same time, I'd have to assume they were mixed up at one of the labs.
I don't know that specific engine, but one of the sources of copper in some (GM big block's for one) come from hard driving wearing the thrust bearings as the crankshaft is pushed forward or backward inside the block.

 

[Bill Plock]

I talked to Dan at Oil Analyzers and he impressed me as very knowledgeable about oil analysis (it's not too hard to impress me since I know very little

) Seriously, Dan was very helpful, and while I can't really articulate or totally understand everything he said, the net of our conversation was that he felt the difference in reported CU levels was probably due to different particle detection thresholds between the two tests/methods. He also said that copper in the oil could be the result of electrolysis of exposed CU in the engine (possibly from the oil cooler). Additives in the oil can be the catalyst for the electrolysis, which will stop after an oxide coating forms on the copper. He said the process OAI uses would detect sub micron copper while other some other processes may only detect larger size particles. This could explain the difference. Made sense to me.

 

[davidc]

Bill,

First off, your Duramax needs 10,000 miles to break in the engine. Due to the high compression ratio, the rings are hard (relative to a gasser) and need longer to seat.
Second, the analyst istrying to explain a difference of 30 ppm versus 960 ppm?
Take another sample and repeat. Any engine that had that much copper would have shown up in both analysis's regardless of what method they are using at each lab. ICP Spectroscopy sees wear particles sub 10 micron. It would not see (report) larger particles but these would have been caught in your bypass system anyways.

Trend analysis is just that. One point does not make a trend. Neither does two points, you can draw a line but it is not a trend. By the third point (data), you can possibly establish an increasing, decreasing, or steady wear trend from the oil analysis.
Trying to read more into it, you'll be guessing.

Good luck with your Duramax. I'd be putting the better filtration on the fuel side of the equation, not the oil side of that engine if what I read on the internet is valid.

 

[Bill Plock]

david,

Thanks for the feedback! I agree and will be doing another analysis soon at my next oil change. Since the other wear metals and Si were normal, I wasn't too worried about the CU.

Also agree on the need to add fuel filters for the Duramax - I currently have three (30u, 5u, 1u) per the pics in my previous post. If you haven't seen it check out this BOSCH paper on the effects of diesel fuel quality on the new high-pressure injection systems (common rail).

 

[Stinky Peterson]

Copper that high is an indication of a chemical reaction, most likely involving the oil cooler as explained by the one lab fellow. He is right about that but I disagree with his explanation of the difference. The instrument most commonly use to measure wear elements is an ICP spectrometer. They measure particles ranging form atoms up to about 3-5 micron. AA is another instrument that measures similar sized particles as is DCP and Rotrode. Rotrode is able to measure particles up to about 15 microns. They will all measure small particles.

I would say in your case one of the labs screwed up and mixed up the samples.


Stinky

 

[Bill Plock]

Stinky,

Thanks for the feedback! I see from your profile that you have some experience in this area. I plan to send dual samples again at my next interval and hopefully they will correlate on the Cu.