how to read a particle count test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
344
Location
NoVA
I had a PC test done with my most recent oil analysis. Blackstone didn't elaborate on what the numbers mean when they sent the report, and I didn't see anything on their website.

Code:



Particle Count

ISO Code (2) 14/10 clean

NAS 1638 Class 0

ISO Code (3) 14/13/11

>= 2 micron 252

>= 5 micron 93

>= 10 micron 25

>= 15 micron 10

>= 25 micron 2

>= 50 micron 0

>= 100 micron 0





I did a search for NAS 1638 and found the following table, which helps a little bit:

nas1638-tab1-2.gif


and I found this table for ISO Code:

oa101-fig1.gif


but what is the difference between ISO Code (2) and ISO Code (3)?

It makes sense that the goal is to have as few particles as possible in the oil, but other than that it's greek to me
crazy.gif
 
I'm lost (somewhat) too.

The >5um level should end up being your "14" ..since if falls between 80-160 and the >15um is the only one that qualifies for the "10"

However, I don't see anything that matches 13 (40-80).

Now 10 or 11 fit the 10 (>15um) particle count.

..but let's ignore the finer points here ... this is a 10k OEM (Filtech) filter.

Here's mine over 9k with a PureOne

ISO Particle Count: 17/16/13,
Particles were:
>2 micron = 1,666,
>5 mu = 617 mu,
>10mu = 170,
>15 mu = 66,
>25 mu = 15,
>50 mu = 1,
>100 mu = 0.

Yours looks darn clean for 10k
 
Thanks GA, I was pretty surprised with the results from what I could interpret. I really think the Honda/Filtech filter a gem
smile.gif


Did Blackstone do your particle count? Which begs another question, do particle counts vary based on the shop that performs them (i.e. could they be scaled)? I remember reading a pc count for one of AEHass's rides and the numbers were pretty high...
 
Yes, it appears that Filtech, at least in your engine, is a very good combo. Makes you wonder why Fram is/was the alternative OEM
confused.gif


Blackstone did my PC ..and if you noticed ..they've got some incorrect number on mine too. I've got nothing that meets "17". I've got 18 for my >2

If I went from bottom to top (which can't be how they do it) my numbers would be (if I have read the chart correctly).

18/16/15/13/11/7 ..there's no 17 in my sample at all
dunno.gif
I'll assume that they were off by one in the 16/15 part of it.

Somehow, I think the fine doctor's PC is off by a factor of 10.

>5__________44864___81592______18349
>10_________3703_____4273_______3508
>15_________318______608________1255
>20_________109______350________523
>25_________42_______252________239
>50_________5________118_________27
>75_________1_________90__________6
>100________0_________64__________1

Either that ..or something is very "unright" mechanically and a very poor filter. I tend to lean toward improper calc by the lab.

PC should be PC ..however Dr. Haas's lab may not subscribe to industry standards for their test. They appear to have checked the entire liter of oil. I've always thought that this was "per 100ml sample" ..but I've seen some labs that use 50ml sample sizes for optical PC.

Someone has probably already gone over this a good bit back, but I probably didn't pay attention since most of us use Blackstone ..so we're mostly on the same page.
 
There is a lot to consider here, and it's not an easy onion to peel. One thing that the PC does not tell us is what the particles are made of. If the particle is soft, or at least softer than the materials it may encounter in a tight clearance, then perhaps the particle gets damaged (crushed, comminuted, etc.) instead of the particle damaging the surfaces. It really would be nice to have some further info to put these numbers into proper context and to allow drawing more meaningful concusions from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top