Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
I think he was just looking for some piece of mind as his tractor hits its eighth year.
And, you're right: he could buy a $10 gallon of store brand 15w-40 instead of $16 in JD oil. For the extra six bucks, he gets to support the local dealer and has an excuse to look at tractors. No harm done.
I guess this is where I disagree with many folks ...
There is harm done. It's wasteful. Waste of money; waste of info. Pays more than one needs to for a lube, then pays for a UOA and ignores what it tells him.
Unless he truly suspected a contamination issue (coolant disappearing at a high rate; torn air filter discovered, etc), then a singular UOA really has no ability to add any value here. He confirmed what he likely already suspected, and had no reason to suspect otherwise, right? So what does he do from here?
- if he intends to UOA every year, then the data is telling him he can greatly extend the OCIs, and quite likely use a lesser cost CJ-4
- if he does not intend to UOA every year, then what does this UOA represent in risk avoidance that skipping future UOAs would not represent the same risks being present? For what reason would he use other methods of observation as trustworthy, but only every once in a while "need" a UOA?
The purpose of doing UOAs is two-fold:
1) track the lube health directly
2) track the equipment health indirectly
If you only use UOAs as toys, then you're wasting money. Paying for a UOA which shows the LUBE can be extended, and that the equipment is fine, is a total waste if you do NOT intend to extend the OCI, and only get UOAs on a infrequent basis whereas all other indicators show no signs of equipment concern.
Hence, waste is harm, at least where I come from. Now, I do understand that waste can be "fun" for a lack of a better term. Wasting money on a passion can result in emotional satisfaction that is difficult to quantify, but is sensed in terms of "happiness". I get that; I even do that. But let's not pretend that there is no harm done here, because how one defines "harm" means a great deal to how we interpret this topic. Generally, I'd like to think that we're going to apply science and logic to a thread that is about UOAs, as a UOA does not have a column for "emotional pleasure level" next to the vis, FP or soot. Therefore, the reason to do a UOA is to learn from it.
Perhaps, to be fair all around, it would be more accurate to state "No emotional harm done, as he does not mind wasting money to feel better about it." That I would have no objection to.
I agree, but all manufacturers put the caveat in the owners manual "or one year", which many of us have proven through UOA to be hogwash. This UOA has shown that this interval can be extended greatly yet the owner refused to believe what the data showed him.
I try to use my fluids to their fullest extent, the Deere fluids are top shelf, designed for extended use, quite honestly using a fluid designed for extended intervals and dumping it extremely early is wasteful.