Pablo -
Listed examples from my previous post, in order:
1: Fe at 46, Cu at 364, 10k miles on oil; no evidence of other influencing factors, not “break in” on a vehicle with that many miles.
2: Fe at 53, Cu at 184, 22.5k miles on oil; no evidence of other influencing factors, vehicle at 100k+ miles is certainly not “new” or “break in”.
3: I put this in to show that Amsoil is not the only one that experiences this phenomenon. I did, however, make a mistake when I counted it into the total; my apology.
4: Fe at 34, Cu at 681! 16.5k miles on oil, no other influences. Not a new truck by any means. (Note, Oil Analyzers calls this Cu count as “moderate”. REALLY? That’s their idea of “moderate”? I’d hate to see what they think “extreme” Cu equates to …)
5: Fe 9, Cu 12, 3.5k miles on oil; 32k miles on truck. No evidence of contamination. Numbers are low because of low total oil use, but on a “per mile” basis, they are well above average. This is the one you initially took exception to. If I understand your objection, you claim that the “time” of 4 years contributes to the higher Fe? OK – maybe you’re right. But wouldn’t that just mean that he could use a dino lube, change it more often, and save money while getting less Fe? What’s your point? That to bring the Fe down on a “per year” basis, he should use Amsoil but change it every year, averaging only 875 miles a year per OCI????????
6: Fe at 37, Cu at 74, 14.6k miles on oil. No contamination to note. 126k miles on a PSD.
7: Fe at 28, Cu at 12; only 5k miles on the oil, 20k on the truck on his 4th oil change, which means any “break in” residual should be long gone. First OCI with Rotella, the subsequent three with Amsoil, at approximately 5k mile OCIs. Whatever you say about the numbers, it’s all on Amsoil after three consecutive OCIs, as the “flush” has already occurred after 4 events of 5k mile OCIs. This isn’t break in; this isn’t anything but Amsoil at work.
8: Fe at 26, Cu at 5, 10k miles on the Amsoil, 70k on truck. No evidence of contamination.
9: Fe at 51, Cu at 7, about 10k miles on oil and 40k on truck. No contamination present. Not the first Amsoil load either.
10: Two Amsoil UOAs together, most recent with Fe at 18 and Cu at 188 right at the universal average of 6.7k miles. (The Cu had been 371 and Fe at 33 on the previous UOA!) Truck is NOT new with 25k miles on a Dmax. Both Fe and Cu are trending down; cut about in half from previous numbers. No contamination. I like the direction of the Cu and Fe. But this is NOT indicative of “break in”. Those of us who own Dmax’s never saw that much Cu or Fe during break-in with dino fluids. My personal experience with my Dmax, and talking with many of my acquaintances with Dmax vehicles, shows that these numbers are WAY above the “normal” break in numbers. Is some portion of these numbers in these UOAs “break in”? Probably, but only 20% or so, and that leaves 80% of these levels attributable to the chemistry of Amsoil. To infer this is “break in” is a very lop-sided view of the facts.
11: This UOA shows elevated numbers, but no evidence of contamination. Could be break-in, but it certainly is Amsoil in the crankcase. And again, just like example 10, when one uses Amsoil during break in, the vast majority of the numbers are due to the chemistry.
12: Two Amsoil UOAs together, with Fe at 194 in 25k miles (was 151 at 20k). Cu is well in check at 15 and 12. Being a 2001 PSD, this ain’t break in, and it’s not contamination.
So, I’m confused here about your objections; please state the examples you disagree with.
Just which are the examples where you see clear evidence of contamination?
Which examples had the coolant leaks (you stated it as a plural, so which are they)?
I see one example that is likely some small portion of break-in (example 11); I also emphatically state that the overall quantity is NOT break in, and I (among others) have personal experience as to draw direct experience from when it comes to Dmax engines.
I purposely used a variety of engines and exposures, to show the breadth of the topic, and I stated that previously. What in the world is your objection to that?
This was NOT a list of UOAs for “comparative purposes”, Pablo. This was a list of UOAs (all but one is Amsoil) that shows my initial statement to be true. I stated that there is “well documented” evidence of Amsoil UOAs with high Cu and/or Fe. I went back about two years and got 11 UOAs out of 17 Amsoil UOAs. (Initially I had counted wrong about the Schaeffer one; I’m admitting my error, but it really doesn’t change the total percentage very much as 12/18 and 11/17 are only .02 different in percentage points). I would challenge you to go find, in that same time period, UOAs of conventional oils where approximately 2/3rds of the samples showed abnormally high Fe and Cu.
If you get back to the basis of my post a few pages back, I was commenting that LouieLouie was inferring his lighter grade Amsoil was the cause of his elevated metal counts. I merely countered with the fact that I believe it was not the lighter grade, but simply the Amsoil chemistry. I don’t see the value of using Amsoil if the OP is going to do short OCIs. However, I agree with you that HDD would be an excellent choice if he’s going to extend the OCIs way out. There are some excellent UOA examples that show Amsoil’s products can be used successfully. That’s all I stated initially; nothing more and nothing less. Somehow, once again, you took it as a “Amsoil bash”, when that clearly wasn’t the case. I complimented Amsoil’s products and agreed with you, conditionally, if the OP was going to extend his OCI. Then you ignore the factual basis for my comments about the existence of the high Fe and Cu in Amsoil UOAs, and erroneously attack me as a moderator.
In short, I disagree with the use of any synthetics if the OCIs for the OP’s three rigs are going to be short to moderate; I agree that HDD would be a good choice if the OCI is going to be greatly extended. And I disagree with LouieLouie that his wear metals were due to the lighter grade lube; I believe I’ve shown that, at times, Amsoil and other brands will result in higher Fe and Cu metal counts due to chemistry of the lubes themselves.
Like I said before, why don’t we let the folks review the UOAs for themselves, and make up their own minds?