Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
The question is asking, "which one looks like better results?", you guys obviously have all the answers...since I'm not coming up with any conclusions that make sense.
Herein lays the fundemental problem with most people in how they use (or more accurately, misuse) UOA data.
There are two concepts to understand; one is micro analysis and the other is macro analysis. One covers the individual scenarios, the other covers mass population exposures.
Singular UOA data points cannot be used in determining that anything is "better" than another. But singular UOA data can be used to see how one situation compared/contrasted to a body of averages. It is a matter of how we control (exclude) and manipulate (include) variables, keeping in mind averages and deviations.
In no scientificaly reasonable manner can you have an engine that is likely finishing up a break in process, and two separate UOAs using two completely different lubes, whereas you to draw any conclusion whatsoever as to which lube is "better". Just cannot be done with any sense of truth or merit.
To be able to fairly compare/contrast individual lube choices, you must establish long-term trends and ranges for all candidates. You should run tens-of-thousands of miles and take many multiple UOAs along the way, so that you can see not only the "average" wear rates, but also the standard deviation associated with those results. Only then can one lube be declared "better" for any one specific situation. This is the application of micro analysis.
However, you CAN take a singular UOA, and compare/contrast it to a set of large-body averages (aka universal averages). This does not allow you to say that one singular data point set from a UOA shows that something is "better" or "worse", but it can allow one to state if something is "normal" (i.e. - reasonable average) if the singular UOA results are within the standard deviation of the universal average data streams.
I would ask that you go back and re-read my posts. I never said that this oil did a bad job. I said that you cannot fairly compare/contrast the two lubes you tried, and that this current UOA shows that some characteristics did not fare well for such a short exposure period. I specifically stated that comments like "great" and "fantastic" were overblown in referring to this report, and it was my intent to challenge the rationale of how you came to that conclusion. You have yet to provide the information we need to make a reasonable determination on this UOA in a macro sense, because we don't see any "universal average" data. And in no way, shape, or form can you fairly and accuratly make a micro-analysis conclusion on the UOA; you dont' have a fraction of the data needed to do so.
Additionally, knowing how to interpret data is only the first part of running a good lube program. You must be able to take the data, make reasonable conclusions, and then apply those criteria to a point of determination (decision) for some intended goal. Just because you know how much wear you are seeing, means next to nothing if you cannot use that data to make a determination of when to change oil and/or filters. You must understand not only the wear rates, but the condmetionation limits (total magnitude of wear) that is reasonably permissible as to trigger an OCI, relative to all the parameters tracked. And finally, you must be able to take all this info, and then find your ROI for each proposed situation. You should be viewing each lube choice relative to the lifecycle attainable, and finding the "better" payout.
That whole process is how UOAs should be used in a well defined overall maintenance program. Unfortunately, most folks here use UOAs as toys, and have nearly no understanding whatsoever of how to interpret them, and what to do with the data after it is gleaned.
You mentioned that this UOA is from your truck; a vehicle that you own and you control. You indicate that you will decide when to OCI and with what lube. I could not agree with you more. I fully, completely, unequivically contend that you are in charge of your life. I would have it no other way; live and let live. But don't confuse the topics of emotion and logic. Your conclusions are based upon feeling and not data. You have every right to profess your opinions in this public forum. And I have every right to remind you and others that your conclusions are not logical, nor based upon a solid foundation. My "opinion" is that your "opinion" is emotional and not logical. There is nothing wrong with having emotions (we all have them) and there is even nothing wrong with making decisions upon emotional criteria (we all do it), but it is a false pretense to try to pass off emotional decisions as logical; that is untrue and misleading.
Originally Posted By: jb2trbof150
I've presented the data to maybe help someone else make a decision on the oil they may use.
Perhaps that was your intent. But, it cannot be used in that manner with any credibility. It is at the tail-end of break in, and there is no ability to make a factual conclusion as to either micro or macro performance of the lubes. We can make anecdotal observations of the relative parameters such as vis shearing and such. Nothing more; nothing less.
I bid you a good day. It is not my intent to offend you. But as members of this open, voluntary, public forum, I have the privilege to challenge your conclusions as much as you have the privilege to post them here. You most certainly can post an emotional evaluation of your UOA; I can post a logical response.