Recent Topics
Gulf Racing 5W60
by tommygunn
26 minutes 49 seconds ago
What to charge for yard work?
by jeepman3071
Today at 11:36 AM
My nearly perfect 2003 BMW 330Ci
by SLO_Town
Today at 10:46 AM
Hot Oil Rustproofing formula?
by HangFire
Today at 10:27 AM
"Harley sound" with twin lawmower engines
by Blaze
Today at 09:51 AM
Oil Extractor -Hand Pump - Anyone use??
by Ope_Freak
Today at 09:39 AM
brake shudder at high speed
by Cardiobuck
Today at 09:20 AM
groovy brakes
by cutter
Today at 09:15 AM
Winter storage?
by Camprunner
Today at 09:06 AM
Has Audi's reliability improved?
by skyactiv
Today at 09:02 AM
Amsoil Absolute Efficiency Air Filters?
by WillB
Today at 08:14 AM
Honda Pilot gas mileage
by G-MAN
Yesterday at 09:21 PM
Newest Members
jrf71, h2oskikrazy, zheka64, rvs, tortillasoup
51642 Registered Users
Who's Online
104 registered (84zmyfavorite, 147_Grain, 901Memphis, 05LGTLtd, 2010_FX4, 8 invisible), 2132 Guests and 138 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51639 Members
64 Forums
220959 Topics
3492191 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Topic Options
#2673093 - 07/03/12 08:57 PM Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count
OldCowboy Offline


Registered: 05/28/11
Posts: 734
Loc: SW Missouri
Either the Fram XG Extended Guard 3614 and NAPA Platinum 41348 filters are extraordinary oil filters, or Polaris Laboratories screwed up the particle count analysis on three samples. Here's the basic information:

- Sample 1: Toyota 0W-20 after 9837 miles. ISO Cleanliness 17/16/14, with 698 particles 4u>10U

- Sample 2: Virgin Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20. ISO Cleanliness 21/17/13, with 15634 particles 4u > 10u

- Sample 3: Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20 from the same 5 qt bottle as Sample 2, but after the vehicle had been run 10 miles to circulate the oil and mix with the remaining oil that was left in the oil passages after draining the oil. ISO Cleanliness 17/16/14 with 738 particles 4u>10u.

If these analyses are correct, which I doubt, the NAPA Platinum filter removed 98.8% of the particles which were less than 10u in diameter and 99.5% of the particles which were less than 14u in diameter. Frankly, I cannot believe these results.

Can anyone explain this???

Top
#2673104 - 07/03/12 09:04 PM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
Rand Offline


Registered: 08/20/03
Posts: 7746
Loc: Barberton,Ohio
sounds like 1 and 2 were switched and 3 is normal.
_________________________
2015 Forester I-Premium 6MT


Top
#2673137 - 07/03/12 09:38 PM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
OldCowboy Offline


Registered: 05/28/11
Posts: 734
Loc: SW Missouri
That's what I was thinking. I've asked them to rerun the particle counts.

This is not the first time I've had problems with Polaris. One of the virgin oil samples I sent in came back with wear metals similar to a 3000 mile sample. I'm starting to think their quality control is sloppy.

Top
#2673165 - 07/03/12 10:03 PM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
Rand Offline


Registered: 08/20/03
Posts: 7746
Loc: Barberton,Ohio
or lazy.
_________________________
2015 Forester I-Premium 6MT


Top
#2673202 - 07/03/12 11:08 PM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
LargeCarManX2 Offline


Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 2279
Loc: Up here in the NorthWest
And if they are correct? Wow! now that would be Greeaat!
_________________________
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
Sir Winston Churchill

Top
#2673267 - 07/04/12 01:53 AM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
ltslimjim Offline


Registered: 08/06/10
Posts: 5143
Loc: PL&F
Is there a difference in the ISO code for Virgin oil and Used oil?

Where is Jim Allen when you need him...grin2
_________________________
1992 Civic VX 275k+
HG replaced, waiting to sample

Top
#2673380 - 07/04/12 07:47 AM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
cp3 Offline


Registered: 07/26/06
Posts: 2614
Loc: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Well clearly they are extrodinary filters and it just cleaned up that virgin oil in the 10 mile run!!! grin2

I agree that they probably just mixed up the samples but it sure makes you wonder about the rest of their practices if they can't keep samples straight.
_________________________
Dodge Charger|Pennzoil Platinum 5w20|Mopar MO-744
Pontiac G6 GT|Mobil 1 0w40|Mobil 1 M1-101

Top
#2673398 - 07/04/12 08:04 AM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: OldCowboy]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21293
Loc: NY
Man that sucks, no clue what to believe. Some of these UOA reports leave a lot to the imagination, even what appears to be a good UOA could be wrong. confused
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2673403 - 07/04/12 08:12 AM Re: Disappointing Oil Analysis Results (Particle Count [Re: demarpaint]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46680
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Man that sucks, no clue what to believe. Some of these UOA reports leave a lot to the imagination, even what appears to be a good UOA could be wrong. confused



Agree. I must admit when I first saw that I thought BLACKSTONE particle count.

First of all, contact the lab. Find out the method. I have very little (NO?) faith in low cost particle counts. So as screwy as the results look, it's not necessarily a sample mix up. Ask a mess of questions and have them repeat.

Top