Where is there an article explaining the link between wear metals measured in UOA's and wear from actual engine tear down inspections?
Link Between UOA's and Engine Wear
- Thread starter carock
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There isn't one. There IS an article that details why that's the case however:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/
Why does it always have to be a "tear down?"
I never tear down engines. I disassemble them like a civilized gentleman.
I never tear down engines. I disassemble them like a civilized gentleman.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Why does it always have to be a "tear down?"
I never tear down engines. I disassemble them like a civilized gentleman.
Everybody else is in a hurry!
Why does it always have to be a "tear down?"
I never tear down engines. I disassemble them like a civilized gentleman.
Everybody else is in a hurry!
I don't see how the article explains that there is a definite link between wear metals in a UOA and actual wear measured on engine components other than Fe levels trend with mileage. The author of the article seems to draw conclusions about the effects of OCI on engine wear while never performing inspections on engine parts. Does the Ford-Conoco study he mentions disassemble the engines and measure the wear inside?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: carock
I don't see how the article explains that there is a definite link between wear metals in a UOA and actual wear measured on engine components other than Fe levels trend with mileage. The author of the article seems to draw conclusions about the effects of OCI on engine wear while never performing inspections on engine parts. Does the Ford-Conoco study he mentions disassemble the engines and measure the wear inside?
No, he's saying you can't use a UOA to track wear. Perhaps re-read it with that in mind? That's what the article is designed to explain. As many want to use UOA's on this site as some sort of wear divining rod and that is not their purpose.
They are used to track contamination levels and lubricant life. Fe tracks with mileage, as a contaminant.
And he performed plenty of inspections (tear-downs) during some of his testing. Running Delvac 1 for 90,000Km intervals in OTR trucks for his testing with Mobil. 1.2 million Km parts were measured to be "as new" despite Fe allowing to trend up to 150ppm before condemned and a change necessary.
I don't see how the article explains that there is a definite link between wear metals in a UOA and actual wear measured on engine components other than Fe levels trend with mileage. The author of the article seems to draw conclusions about the effects of OCI on engine wear while never performing inspections on engine parts. Does the Ford-Conoco study he mentions disassemble the engines and measure the wear inside?
No, he's saying you can't use a UOA to track wear. Perhaps re-read it with that in mind? That's what the article is designed to explain. As many want to use UOA's on this site as some sort of wear divining rod and that is not their purpose.
They are used to track contamination levels and lubricant life. Fe tracks with mileage, as a contaminant.
And he performed plenty of inspections (tear-downs) during some of his testing. Running Delvac 1 for 90,000Km intervals in OTR trucks for his testing with Mobil. 1.2 million Km parts were measured to be "as new" despite Fe allowing to trend up to 150ppm before condemned and a change necessary.
Originally Posted By: carock
I don't see how the article explains that there is a definite link
The article clearly explains that there ISN'T a link. That's what OVERKILL was trying to tell you.
I don't see how the article explains that there is a definite link
The article clearly explains that there ISN'T a link. That's what OVERKILL was trying to tell you.
the UOA wear metals are proportional to NORMAL wear (small wear particles). ABNORMAL wear may or may not produce some increase in UOA, as it tends to produce larger wear particles. CATASTROPHIC wear will be missed in UOA as it tend to produce large chunks that will be caught in a filter in the first place. I linked a study on it a couple of years ago, but it's difficult to search on this site.
The article is clearly saying that a Chevy 350 is a high wear engine based on UOA analysis of wear metals. The overall conclusion of the article is that extended OCI's actually help engine longevity based on lower wear rates. The link to UOA wear metals and engine longevity is made with every engine example in the article.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: carock
The article is clearly saying that a Chevy 350 is a high wear engine based on UOA analysis of wear metals. The overall conclusion of the article is that extended OCI's actually help engine longevity based on lower wear rates. The link to UOA wear metals and engine longevity is made with every engine example in the article.
Are you reading the right article? Doug doesn't mention the Chevy 350 in the link I gave you.
I think you are reading Dave Newton's article about normalicy.
The article is clearly saying that a Chevy 350 is a high wear engine based on UOA analysis of wear metals. The overall conclusion of the article is that extended OCI's actually help engine longevity based on lower wear rates. The link to UOA wear metals and engine longevity is made with every engine example in the article.
Are you reading the right article? Doug doesn't mention the Chevy 350 in the link I gave you.
I think you are reading Dave Newton's article about normalicy.
Oh yeah, my bad. That is a different article.
SO this begs the question, how can Dave Newton make his conclusions about engine wear and OCI intervals based on UOA wear metals if wear metals are such unreliable indicators of engine wear?
SO this begs the question, how can Dave Newton make his conclusions about engine wear and OCI intervals based on UOA wear metals if wear metals are such unreliable indicators of engine wear?
Originally Posted By: carock
SO this begs the question, how can Dave Newton make his conclusions about engine wear and OCI intervals based on UOA wear metals if wear metals are such unreliable indicators of engine wear?
so, you didn't understand what i wrote above?
SO this begs the question, how can Dave Newton make his conclusions about engine wear and OCI intervals based on UOA wear metals if wear metals are such unreliable indicators of engine wear?
so, you didn't understand what i wrote above?
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
And thanks for being so patient with my questions.
And thanks for being so patient with my questions.
Originally Posted By: carock
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
That's right - many people try to draw too many conclusions from a simple UOA. The primary benefit of a UOA is to see if you can safely extend your OCI and to look for things such as coolant or fuel contamination or dirt ingestion. As far as metals, it's the trending over time that's more beneficial than a single analysis. And yes, a $20 UOA is not a good tool to compare one oil's performance against another. But that hasn't stopped may people from thinking that it is.
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
That's right - many people try to draw too many conclusions from a simple UOA. The primary benefit of a UOA is to see if you can safely extend your OCI and to look for things such as coolant or fuel contamination or dirt ingestion. As far as metals, it's the trending over time that's more beneficial than a single analysis. And yes, a $20 UOA is not a good tool to compare one oil's performance against another. But that hasn't stopped may people from thinking that it is.
i personally think i get a meaningful wear info (semiquantative) by looking at the amount of magnetic fuzz on magnetic drain plugs. sure enough, the OCI when oil rings seized in my corolla, there was 5x the normal magnetic fuzz amount (normal is traces).
Originally Posted By: carock
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
And thanks for being so patient with my questions.
not accurate is the correct word. the scientific way of doing this would be having multiple measurements (like 20) and calculate means, variances, and p value. even then you are comparing the harmless NORMAL wear and missing on ABNORMAL wear.
the ABNORMAL wear is better measured by particle counts and measuring the particles trapped in oil filters.
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
And thanks for being so patient with my questions.
not accurate is the correct word. the scientific way of doing this would be having multiple measurements (like 20) and calculate means, variances, and p value. even then you are comparing the harmless NORMAL wear and missing on ABNORMAL wear.
the ABNORMAL wear is better measured by particle counts and measuring the particles trapped in oil filters.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: carock
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
That's right - many people try to draw too many conclusions from a simple UOA. The primary benefit of a UOA is to see if you can safely extend your OCI and to look for things such as coolant or fuel contamination or dirt ingestion. As far as metals, it's the trending over time that's more beneficial than a single analysis. And yes, a $20 UOA is not a good tool to compare one oil's performance against another. But that hasn't stopped may people from thinking that it is.
Originally Posted By: carock
Okay my thick skull sort of gets it. However the idea of being able to judge engine wear of different oils in the same engine by looking at UOA wear metal numbers seems to be the whole reason for many people performing UOA's and it looks like that reason probably is not to accurate. Is that right?
That's right - many people try to draw too many conclusions from a simple UOA. The primary benefit of a UOA is to see if you can safely extend your OCI and to look for things such as coolant or fuel contamination or dirt ingestion. As far as metals, it's the trending over time that's more beneficial than a single analysis. And yes, a $20 UOA is not a good tool to compare one oil's performance against another. But that hasn't stopped may people from thinking that it is.
- Status
Similar threads
