Wear Not Seen in UOA?

[TucsonDon]

I'm going to ask a question here, and up front I'll admit it sounds like a stupid question but I'm being serious:

If a motorcycle engine is experiencing excessive bearing or lifter wear, is there any way a properly done UOA would fail to detect it?

Here's why I ask the question -- I see over and over and over again various articles and posts by people warning against this oil or that oil for motorcycles. If a UOA on the oil shows no excessive wear metals, can it be said without a doubt that no excessive wear is taking place? Again, the premise is the UOA is done properly.

I can't see the logic of rejecting Oil X if Oil X shows good UOA results for a given bike in a given OCI for a given set of conditions.

What am I missing? Why would someone argue against an oil when all the UOA's are coming back okay? I mean, other than the usual reasons about having a personal brand preference, or rejecting it for no other reason than it's the newer rating.

 

[Dad2leia]

As far as I know, UOA's and VOA's cannot detect the amount of organic compounds in the additive structure, so unless their is something organic wearing inside the engine, I can't see the problem in using an oil that makes both you and your bike happy.

Usually the debate on cycle oils is about the moly content in a shared sump system, not about UOA's. You do ask a very valid question, and one that I really can't give a concise or direct answer to.

 

[TucsonDon]

Originally Posted By: Dad2leia
As far as I know, UOA's and VOA's cannot detect the amount of organic compounds in the additive structure, so unless their is something organic wearing inside the engine, I can't see the problem in using an oil that makes both you and your bike happy.

What would be an example of an "organic compound?" I'm not a chemist ... actually, I'm pretty much a chemical dummy.

But still, my primary concern is the integrity of the metalic structure of my engine, correct? Even if there were organic compounds at work in my engine, if they were eating away at the metal, or causing wear, wouldn't the metal counts go up? There'd be no way to mask that, regardless of what might be causing the wear. The bottom line is whether wear is occurring or not. And a UOA will pick that up. Or so I think.

Originally Posted By: Dad2leia
Usually the debate on cycle oils is about the moly content in a shared sump system, not about UOA's.

Yes, but those debates go in circles. I'm looking to settle on a properly performed UOA to be my "stubborn facts" in the debate.

So ... in my mind, if the UOA looks good, what difference does it make what oil I'm using?

 

[sunruh]

go look at the uoa on the honda VFR800 interceptor from last year i think. the one that had the rod bearing failures. it has surprisingly low values in the wear metals for the damage done to the motor. shocking really. however, if you were doing constant uoa's on the bike and then saw a spike of 30 in copper or iron or simular, then you know you best be looking under the hood!

 

[sunruh]

Originally Posted By: TucsonDon

So ... in my mind, if the UOA looks good, what difference does it make what oil I'm using?


basically, that's what i've been proving one test at a time for more than 6.5 years now.

 

[TucsonDon]

Originally Posted By: sunruh
go look at the uoa on the honda VFR800 interceptor from last year i think. the one that had the rod bearing failures. it has surprisingly low values in the wear metals for the damage done to the motor. shocking really.

What would account for this?

One idea that comes to my mind -- the wear took place long before the actual failure, and when the UOA was actually done the wear and damage had long since passed in terms of evidence in the oil?

 

[dnewton3]

I believe that consistent use of a particular brand/weight, along with regular UOA's will predict normal/abnormal wear patterns. However, be aware that UOA's only can detect up to about 5um in size with spectral analysis. If you have a fairly significant event in your engine, without being catastrophic, it could possibly throw out "chunks" of metal large enough that a UOA may not see them. A particle count of pre-and-post filter oil would be more precise for this type of damage. However, particle counts are more difficult to do (3 main types of methods), and are more expensive as well. We count on a UOA to signal the small changes preceeding a significant event, but perhaps this doesn't always happen.

I posted the following link
http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/dokumenter/Pdf_filer/Cummins_Litteratur/Olie_3810340-04.htm
in the diesel UOA section, but it's appropriate to bring up here too. This is a statement from Cummins Engine in 2004, so it's relatively current. Read the whole thing. There are some very interesting comments about the need to use the same oil all the time for a UOA to reveal true wear trends. If a person were to keep swapping oils, even while doing UOA's, he could be masking a detrimental condition in engine wear by the chemical reactions coming from swapping oil brands.

The original post question was "If a motorcycle engine is experiencing excessive bearing or lifter wear, is there any way a properly done UOA would fail to detect it?" Just because you do UOA's doesn't automatically mean that you're seeing the "truth" regarding engine wear.

Further, in my oil filter study comparing/contrasting FF versus BP filters, there was not any statistical shift in UOA criteria until around 9k miles of use and thereafter. Only then did the BP filtered engines have a statistical advantage. However, it's important to note that, again, a UOA is limited in it's ability to see wear particles greater than 5um. So the conclusion I came to is that the oil is the controlling factor of engine wear when OCI's are kept to 8k miles or less.

Bottom line to answer your question? Yes. Because when you ask if "any" way exists, we must be open to the world of "possibility". But that is much different than the reality of "probability". It's unlikely that a UOA would miss significant engine damage, but it is concieveable.

 

[TucsonDon]

Wonderful answer, dnewton3 -- that explains a lot.

I'd never considered the possibility of the spectral analysis missing something because the "pieces" were too big. It makes sense ... I'd just never considered it.

 

[buster]

Quote:
go look at the uoa on the honda VFR800 interceptor from last year i think. the one that had the rod bearing failures. it has surprisingly low values in the wear metals for the damage done to the motor. shocking really.


Redline has told me this as well. They have had UOA's come back that show low wear after an engine completely broke down and failed. Wear metals were low. Who knows....

 

[TucsonDon]

Originally Posted By: buster
Redline has told me this as well. They have had UOA's come back that show low wear after an engine completely broke down and failed. Wear metals were low. Who knows....

Wow ... that suggests that UOAs are an potential indicator, but can't be relied upon with certainty. And that is the crack in the door that allows vendors and others to insist one oil is garbage while other oils are the only "safe" thing to run with in a bike.

What's a natural worrier like me to do?

 

[sunruh]

Originally Posted By: TucsonDon

What's a natural worrier like me to do?

you change the oil frequently, keep up on maintenance and dont fall prey to marketing hype!

 

[dnewton3]

"you change the oil frequently, keep up on maintenance and dont fall prey to marketing hype! " (copied from sunruh). Agreed. How "frequently" depends on your own personal level of warm-and-fuzzy-feeling down deep in your BITOG gut. A UOA should give you a reasonable range of comfort.

Overall, how many engines do we see that actually failed due to insufficient lubricant properties? VERY, VERY FEW. It would be such a small fraction of a percent that it would be difficult to quantify. Further, one would have to prove that the engine failure was a direct result of lubricant inadequacey, and not some manufacturer's defect in the engine itself. Oil cannot make up for, or overcome, and defect in manufacture or design.

My only point in my previous post was to inform you of the possibility of missing potential failure, as you queried. You will give yourself a better chance of catching that potential failure if you stay consistent with one brand/weight of oil for all OCI/UOA's.

There are only two types of internal combustion failure; chronic (over time) and accute (immediate). We can probably effect the outcome of the chonic wear by choosing a good brand name oil, and using UOA's for the establishment of proper OCI's. We have NO realistic control over accute failures. A con-rod or piston that decides to grenade the engine is not reasonably attributed to the oil's lubricating qualities. So, you could probably catch the signs of abnormal wear, but you'll never see the catastrophic event coming until it's too late.

Just ride, eat, sleep, repeat! It's what I do!

 

[TucsonDon]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
A UOA should give you a reasonable range of comfort.

The original intent of my query was to understand what might be a counter-argument to those who insist the new SM oil isn't good because of lower ZDDP levels.

My thinking was: if ZDDP is lower and the UOA still shows low wear metals, who cares?

I have to believe that the engineers at Shell, Mobil, Chevron, etc. see the requirements of the new specification and they form a hypothesis about a new formulation. Then they test it. And they probably use far more sophisticated test methodologies than a sample to Blackstone. Eventually they come up with a formulation that delivers the performance they need to place their name and reputation on the line.

Take the new "Triple Protection" oil from Shell. CJ-4/SM rated. Many shriek in terror at the stuff, claiming it'll ruin an engine. And I'm thinking:

• Yeah, Shell would bet their reputation on oil that ruins an engine
  
• Everything I've read about the stuff indicates it just may be better than previous formulations, even with a slightly lower ZDDP level
• I've run the stuff for two change intervals with UOA's and everything looks just fine

So in truth I'm not worried. This was really just an exercise to figure out a logical, rational response to those who claim the newer-rated oils aren't any good.

And my thinking, again: If the UOAs come back good, who cares what the ZDDP level is?

And this query was an attempt to validate my outlook -- either I'm more or less in the ballpark, or I'm completely out to lunch.

 

[sunruh]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Overall, how many engines do we see that actually failed due to insufficient lubricant properties? VERY, VERY FEW.


i don't seem to recall EVER seeing one and proving it would probably be impossible.

 

[wileyE]

Originally Posted By: TucsonDon

The original intent of my query was to understand what might be a counter-argument to those who insist the new SM oil isn't good because of lower ZDDP levels.



One argument would be to look at the api test requirements and show that SM requires less cam wear by weight than previous specs. can't remember the exact #'s but it's like 90 instead of 120. So the zddp may be reduced but the bar has been set higher for cam wear. Bearing wear 26 (sm) vs 26.4 and many other things are tested, but since cams and zddp seem to a big topic, it might be a good thing to point out.

FWIW, I don't believe api has a set limit on zddp? ISLAC sets that limit. Since many api-sm oils are also islac gf-4, there lies the confusion about SM being lacking in zddp. For example the CJ-SM diesel oils use more zddp than islac gf-4 oil.

 

[dnewton3]

I'm not up on all the actual chemistry properties that the new level of SM oils require. But then again, I don't have to be, in reality.

What makes sense to me is that the "oil" available to we consumers is actually and obvisouly a blend of base stocks, additives, and who knows what little "black magic" for each brand and weight on the market. That in mind, if an additive package is "compromised" in some way by having it's allowable percent of chemical X reduced, then it is possible to make up for that by increasing component Y. It's even concieveable to have an overall better "oil" by having less additives, but better base stock, right? It's always an issue of cost versus content in the business world. The chemical packages are being reduced to prevent damage to exhaust treatment equipment, on both gas and diesel engines. To that end, for any given desired performance level, if one characteristic is diminished, another can be bolstered to compensate.

So, to me, such as the case with the new CJ/SM oils, the products that I buy will probably protect my engine better in the long run than previous oils, even though they may have less of this or that. For TucsonDon, I believe he's right in thinking that if ZDDP is down, wouldn't there be other factors that are "up" that allow for similar, if not better, performance overall.

Wear metals and insolubles are the telling factors in a UOA. To me, it doesn't really matter what caused or prevented the wear; it only matters of the end result. It's one of the few arenas where the end probably justifys the means. A UOA is not the ONLY sign of wear, but it's what we have readily available to us, and it's reaonably reliable. If your UOA shows good wear patterns, then it's reasonable to assume the lube of choice is doing it's job.

 

[Jaybird]

Well said, Mr Newton.

To really have some good data, we should accompany our analysis' with real world measurements at build, and tear down as well.
Without measurements, trending data is really incomplete and relies on some assumption.

UOA's and thorough measurements provide a good check and verification for one another. And it is also the only way to really answer/verify your questions, Don.

 

[dnewton3]

Here's a link to an SAE article, that specifically states "The results indicate that by appropriately selecting and balancing supplemental antiwear and/or antioxidation additives the wear loss due to the reduction of zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP) may be compensated or even reduced." This is from the SAE webstie at this link: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2003-01-3119.

This points to the fact that if you're getting good UOA results, the lube you've selected is doing it's job. Short of a teardown for dimensional measurements, it's the best indicator we have of mechanical health of our equipment.

 

[02zx9r]

nice, thanks

 

[Towel_Rail]

Originally Posted By: wileyE
FWIW, I don't believe api has a set limit on zddp? ISLAC sets that limit. Since many api-sm oils are also islac gf-4, there lies the confusion about SM being lacking in zddp. For example the CJ-SM diesel oils use more zddp than islac gf-4 oil.


Isn't meeting ILSAC GF-4 a prerequisite for SM cerification? http://www.infineum.com/information/api_...%20-%202006.pdf

- Scott