WARNING - suspect Oil Analyis results!

[Flywest]

I'm posting this as a 'service' to the BITOG community to warn about shoddy unreliable UOA test results!

This is a graph of the results I got on two identical samples of the same used oil - sent on 12.07 07 to two different testing laboratories, one in the USA (Oilguard) and one in Australia (Westrac Equipment...ergo caterpillar dealer).

You can see in the left hand column what the virgin analysis of the oil was according to the library here, then two test from oilguard to get a trend plus the third test on July 12th 07.
Alongside it is the result from Westrac Equipments laboratory...here in Oz.

The wear metal results etc are nothing whatever alike...
There are other glaring differences too.

When challenged about their results the Westrac lab technician, swore there was no mixup at their laboratory of samples (I had sent in 3 samples from 3 of my vehicles at the same time).

Then he went on to blame the postal service...saying that bored postal workers open the sample jars and swap the UOA bottles inside around just to mess with peoples heads!

He claimed sometimes the lids come off - and postal workers find the sample bottles in the bottom of the post bag & just put them back inside any open plastic jars and re-secure the lids etc.

Frankly I have zero to little faith left in the entire UOA testing industry!

I did a LOT of modifications to a vehicle I have over $100,000 'invested' (bad word to describe any vehicle purchase) in for my business.

I wanted to see if the LPG injection did indeed make the engine run a lot cleaner - i.e reduce soot levels as the manufacturer claims in writing on their website.

I wanted to see if the wear metal levels had dropped with the inclusing of oilguard bypass sub micron filtering.

I wanted to see if the rare earth neodyium magnets I was using on all filters cannisters - were doing the job of removing ferrous metals...

If I went by the Westrac results -just about EVERYTHING went up by magnitudes....including soot and wear metals etc.

I KNOW what went on - they MIXED up two of my samples - and it is only because I GRAPH my results and test at more than ONE laboratory that i KNOW they gave me my results for my sons 4wd diesel without bypass filtering etc - as being for my F 250.

I know we didn't mix up the kits because we labelled the inside jars as well - to match the paperwork they were sent with, just to be sure.

So....

Assuming that theres no way to be 100% sure your getting your own sample results back - what do you do - when the laboratory or postal pixies goofs?

Whos results did you get?

Are you buying a new engine from the same company just sent you dubious results?

Do the salespeople there deliberately substitute oil samples to target you to buy new product?

How many $1000's of $ might you waste and how many perfectly good engines have been totally screwed up by folks chasing non existent problems with their engine because the laboratory or postal workers screwed up?

How many folks with serious pending engine problems, got someone
else's good result and don't know they are headed for a meltdown of biblical proportions?

Why don't the testing kits come like a postal vote with a triple blind system (lead seals?) so such stoopid mixups cannot happen?

How many unscrupulous dealerships with a testing lab in house use it as a defacto engine/equipment sales tool?

Just a headsup people - this UOA business is NOT all it;'s cracked up to be and unless you are sending away at least 3 samples to independent labs - you could end up costing yourself a small fortune chasing engine problems you don't have!

Worse - like myself - you might actually tackle one of the manufacturers about their claims for a cleaner running engine- based on bad data - and maybe they will then turn around and sue you for the labs or postal workers mistakes.

Simply put it aint good enough - I wouldn't trust ANY of them as far as I could throw them!

Be very careful out there people - this UOA business could cost you an awful lot of wasted $ or worse with the shoddy service and work they perform.

Take nothing for granted and treat them ALL like theives until proven otherwise.

My experience could well be just the tip of the iceberg - who afterall regulates the UOA testing industry? What standards do they have to meet?

Frankly - your astrologer has about as much chance of getting your engine diagnosis right as these clowns in the UOA testing industry based on my experience to date!

Had I not meticulously kept my results and graphed them looking for trends I would never have known that they had switched samples on me...

How comeI picked it up but they at the testing laboratory didn't?

Be wary people - be very wary - the industry as a whole should be licensed and regulated and independently audited IMHO...

Cheers

 

[Flywest]

I am posting this again - because I wanted to edit it, but can't even tho I did it straight away - says the time limit is expired - what 5 mins?

Cheers

I'm posting this as a 'service' to the BITOG community to warn about shoddy unreliable UOA test results!

This is a graph of the results I got on two identical samples of the same used oil - sent on 12.07 07 to two different testing laboratories, one in the USA (Oilguard) and one in Australia (Westrac Equipment...ergo caterpillar dealer).

You can see in the left hand column what the virgin analysis of the oil was according to the library here, then two test from oilguard to get a trend plus the third test on July 12th 07.
Alongside it is the result from Westrac Equipments laboratory...here in Oz on the same date!.

The wear metal results etc are nothing whatever alike for those two identical samples... There are other glaring differences too.

When challenged about their results the Westrac lab technician, swore there was no mixup at their laboratory of the samples (I had sent in 3 samples from 3 of my vehicles at the same time).

Then he went on to blame the postal service...saying that bored postal workers open the sample jars and swap the UOA bottles inside around just to mess with peoples heads!

He claimed sometimes the lids come off in the post - and postal workers find the sample bottles in the bottom of the post bag & just put them back inside any open plastic jars and re-secure the lids etc.

Frankly I have zero to little faith left in the entire UOA testing industry!

I did a LOT of modifications to a vehicle I have over $100,000 'invested' (bad word to describe any vehicle purchase) in, for my business.

I wanted to see if the LPG injection did indeed make the engine run a lot cleaner - i.e reduce soot levels as the manufacturer claims in writing on their website.

I wanted to see if the wear metal levels had dropped with the inclusion of oilguard bypass sub micron filtering.

I wanted to see if the rare earth neodyium magnets I was using on all filters cannisters - were doing the job of removing ferrous metals...

If I went by the Westrac results -just about EVERYTHING went up by magnitudes....including soot and wear metals etc.

I KNOW what went on - they MIXED up two of my samples - and it is only because I GRAPH my results and test at more than ONE laboratory that I KNOW they gave me my results for my sons 4wd diesel, without bypass filtering etc - as being for my F 250.

I know we didn't mix up the kits because we labeled the inside jars as well - to match the paperwork they were sent with, and we double checked before sending them - just to be sure.

So....

Assuming that theres no way to be 100% sure your getting your own sample results back based on my experience - what do you do? - when the laboratory or postal pixies goofs?

Who's results did you REALLY get?

Are you buying a new engine from the same company that just sent you dubious results?

Do the salespeople there deliberately substitute oil samples to target you to then buy new product to solve a non existent problem? Do they know that when they then trade your perfectly good equipment for a new one - planning to then offload the trade in also at a hefty profit becauyse theres really nothing at all wrong with it?

How many $1000's of $ might you waste and how many perfectly good engines have been totally screwed up, by folks chasing non existent problems with their engine because the laboratory or postal workers screwed the UOA samples up?

How many folks with serious pending engine problems, got someone
else's good result and don't know they are headed for a meltdown of biblical proportions any time now?

Why don't the testing kits come like a postal vote with a triple blind system (or lead seals?) so such stoopid mixups cannot happen?

How many unscrupulous dealerships with a testing lab 'in house' use it as a defacto engine/equipment sales tool?

Just a headsup people - this UOA business is NOT all it's cracked up to be and unless you are sending away at least 3 samples to independent labs - you could end up costing yourself a small fortune chasing engine problems you don't have!

Worse - like myself - you might actually tackle one of the manufacturers about their claims for a cleaner running engine- based on bad data - and maybe they will then turn around and sue you for the labs or postal workers mistakes on the UOA's!.

Simply put, it aint good enough - I wouldn't trust ANY of them as far as I could throw them!

Be very careful out there people - this UOA business could cost you an awful lot of wasted $ or worse with the shoddy service and work they perform.

Take nothing for granted and treat them ALL like thieves until proven otherwise.

My experience could well be just the tip of the iceberg - who after all regulates the UOA testing industry? What standards do they have to meet?

Frankly - your astrologer has about as much chance of getting your engine diagnosis right as these clowns in the UOA testing industry, based on my experience to date!

Had I not meticulously kept my results and graphed them looking for trends I would never have known that they had switched samples on me...

How come I picked that up, but they at the testing laboratory with the fancy "oil commander" system - didn't?

Be wary people - be very wary - the industry as a whole should be licensed and regulated and independently audited IMHO...

UOA purveyors are about on par with used car salesmen for lack of any ethics IMHO..

If they were on fire - I wouldn't rear up and relieve my distended bladder on them to put them out quite frankly, because every cent spent ON UOA testing was wasted, because the results cannot be trusted.

Cheers

 

[BigBadf350]

Originally Posted By: Flywest
How many $1000's of $ might you waste and how many perfectly good engines have been totally screwed up by folks chasing non existent problems with their engine because the laboratory or postal workers screwed up?

How many folks with serious pending engine problems, got someone
else's good result and don't know they are headed for a meltdown of biblical proportions?



i dont think you have any #'s that would lead to a major failure here.

you going to have a variation between labs because of testing equipment and methods. that is why its better to stay with one lab. then there is the margin of error factor.

a better test would be to send the same sample to the same lab 2 times and see how close they where.

 

[buster]

Quote:
Frankly I have zero to little faith left in the entire UOA testing industry!


This is why I don't go crazy over these small variations in ppm wear. It's best to stick with one lab to avoid problems.

Quote:
Oil analysis can not be used to compare wear characteristics between oils. The biggest problem is that particles greater than 5 microns in size are not detectable using these simple analytical techniques, so an oil which has a more severe wear problem and is generating wear debris in larger particle sizes, will appear in oil analysis to have lower wear numbers. It is useful to establish a baseline and watch for significant variations which indicate mechanical problems or checking alkalinity and viscosity to determine useful oil life. In some engines Red Line does have greater lead numbers which is an interaction with the molybdenum. It is small amounts on the surface and does not cause premature bearing wear.


I also believe in the quote above.

 

[GMGuy]

A more important question, is each lab consistant in their reading values. Since its trends and not absolutes that are looked at.

However, that leads to the question, is it not reasonable to expect reasonably accurate numbers? Sure, when your dealing down to the ppm, one or two points could be argued as being insignificant, but is it?

 

[Pablo]

crikey - stay on the handle, mate.

Quote:
here are other glaring differences too.


Nothing shocking here. For $20 you were expecting? The numbers are in the floor level. Maybe the 13 ppm iron looks a little out of place, but who knows, could be right with your sample. The rest are the same.

What are the additive numbers?

P, Zn, Mo, Ca?

 

[Mannix]

Remember Parts Per MILLION, All the numbers are within test tolerance. The lab I work for has noise floor tolerances higher than any of the numbers posted. Dont sweat it.

 

[oilyriser]

They might prevent mixups if the forms and sample bottles had random bar codes or those 256 bit data squares on them, to track each sample as it is taken from its mailing container.

 

[MolaKule]

Flywest, tell us how you really feel.

This is the reason I have always dealt with a professional analyst like Terry Dyson who knows his labs and results.

 

[Mokanic]

I think Pablo hit the nail on the head. What can we really expect for $20? They know the average Joe will never know the difference and the average Joe takes one UOA and makes alot of assumptions anyway. I personally avoid [censored] because based on past reports that were posted here they must use the shotgun method. Stick with someone like Terry Dyson and I think you will see more consistant results.

 

[groucho]

This line is exposing the tea leaves and the cast bones. If the $20 buys zilch, how much is required to get a useful analysis.

I note that there is always a pitch which is essentially that one man will provide the "real" answer for additional funding. I got Blackstone and they offer a service including that one man, yet Blackstone does the "analysis". What kinda hooey is that? If the man doesn't do his own tests, then it is simply a case that Blacksonte passed their tests of tea leaves, and the man adds a bit more magic.

Consequently, I voluntarily resign from this whole schmeer as you guys mostly run rabbits like a tired, old Beagle.

Vitamin salesmen!

 

[nortones2]

Buster: where did the quote "Oil analysis can not be used to compare wear characteristics between oils. The biggest problem is that particles greater than 5 microns in size are not detectable using these simple analytical techniques, so an oil which has a more severe wear problem and is generating wear debris in larger particle sizes, will appear in oil analysis to have lower wear numbers. It is useful to establish a baseline and watch for significant variations which indicate mechanical problems or checking alkalinity and viscosity to determine useful oil life. In some engines Red Line does have greater lead numbers which is an interaction with the molybdenum. It is small amounts on the surface and does not cause premature bearing wear."
Its not that I have any issue - just like to know the origin, if you could oblige. Some Freds participants have become earnest believers that they can tell one oil from another by the simple tests the quote is flagging.

 

[nortones2]

Bump.

 

[Loobed]

I can not believe that the post office mixes up the bottles, unless they are required to search every piece of mail for terrorist material. Then the samples might get mixed up. My oil analysis place has a label on the bottle so the samples can't get mixed up.

Some settling of the oil may cause some of the particles to drop to the bottom. Then it would depend on how the oil was sampled from the bottle. If it was taken from the top, there might be less metal but more light fluids. If taken from the bottom, there might be higher metal numbers.

 

[Flywest]

Still it continues.

1. UOA Tests kits & results here cost $50 not $20! For $50 expect some care and attention to detail.. Here at least $80 is a full days wages for many folks...no one spent a full day on those sample results or they'd a picked up the obvious errors!.

2. How can used oil come back with lower readings than the virgin analysis? to make that basic an error is plain dumb.

3. I agree sending the same oil sample to the same lab more than one time is a good idea - I am going to do so then challenge them on their results if they aren't the same.

What worries me is this - I test 3 vehicles and they are suggesting I have "problems" requiring treatment with one of the vehicles - so how do i know if they are right or - not since they couldn't get the posted results right, what confidence is there the rest of the results provided are correct?

I'll make a separate post / thread about the issue that concerns me so as not to derail this one - which is designed to get people to think for themselves and question the results they get.

Cheers

 

[Alternator]

(U)sed (O)il (A)NALYSIS - keyword: ANALYSIS. Should not be considered any more than just another tool in the never ending struggle against vehicular entropy. A maintenance check.

I've been using Blackstone for years and almost always saw expected results, based on my personal knowledge of the specific vehicle's condition. Subsequent UOA's confirmed abnormal readings in two cases after time and corrective adjustments took effect.

Sorry, but my own experience seems somewhat better than what you describe.