You guys still don't get it ... Let me simplify it in this manner with these questions:
What does a UOA show you that you can use as a marker to see when the issue in that engine family arises? Do you see a marked increase in wear metals? A huge shift in viscosity? What is it that the UOA gives you as a clue to know the probelm is afoot?
- If your answer is wear metals, then what shift in which elements are you looking for, past the standard deviation? At what point do you see a delineation in performance between conventional and synthetic lubes? Or, are wear metals not an indicator at all? It is not unheard of that wear metals may not indicate the onset of the problem (example to follow later ...)
- If your answer is vis, then what value is the tell-tale sign? Again, what value is the tipping-point? How does that contrast between the two choices (dino and syn) in macro data?
- Your individual UOA may or may not shot the onset of the sludge problem. Even if it does, it's too late by then. You're already into the problem if you count on your unique UOA to alert you. Visual checks (peeking under the valve cover) may do so, but I cannot assure you of that.
This is topically no different than the discussion I had a year ago about the coked-piston issue in Saturn SL2 engines. And believe it or not, there was a marker that could indicate the onset of the problem; it was oil consumption. Not wear, not vis, not insolubles, not FP. It was top-off fluid! And that information came from macro UOA data. While individual UOAs would not show immediate onset, the mass population data allowed clear delineation of the duration of the OCI where the problem began, and grew. DATA has value, even if it's not yours! And the data seemed indiscriminatory as well; age, brand, grade did not matter. And it was the same story there, too; the OP chose to use PU for 5k miles, but had ZERO idea of why he was doing it, other than his presumption of "cleaning" ability of the lube. He had zero data and no basis for any conclusion, until the marker was discovered in the macro data. And, because the data is predicated heavily on dino, he still has nothing but presumptive thought as to how the syn will react in regard to duration of exposure. So little syn data was there that the marker was not present. In short, he guessed that it would be OK, but had no proof that is was safe. If he was wrong, he too would fall victim.
If you all can get past your sensitive emotional reactions and read my INTENT here, you'll understand. There is good value in macro data; you can learn from OTHERS rather than having to experience the issue first-hand.
What I am pointing out is that here in this thread the OP has no idea what the markers are, or what condemnation points would be prudent based upon macro data. This is why I said he's wasting money; he is swaggin' a guess based upon correlation and not causation. He's being influenced by rhetoric rather than adjusting actions based upon facts. He is using the UOA as a toy rather than a tool. My cat analogy has merit; it illustrates the flawed assumption of presence of an attribute, relative to the exclusion of another. He uses syns; he sees no sludge at 5k miles (yet). That is coincidence and nothing more, as far as proof goes. One or two UOAs with syn in his application is meaningless. If he had 30 successive in a row, and evidence that sludge was not present, then I'd agree that micro data proved his point at that duration. But he does not have that; he has ZERO basis for mirco data conclusions. 5k miles is anecdotal at this point; he has no marker to point to (other than coincidence) that his lube and OCI are "right". He has stumbled upon correlation, not discovered causation.
If you said to me ...
"Dave - the marker is wear; there is a 63% elevation of Fe and Pb at 6.2k miles, with a confidence of .94, when using conventional lubes, but the marker can be shifted to 28% using syns" then I'd have to say you have an identifier. Or, if you said "Mr. Newton - the onset of sludge is predicated by a significant shift of oxidation and nitration outside the 3rd sigma, 47% of the time using conventional fluids at 4.9k miles, but syns delay this onset by one whole magnitude of exposure resultant of the same effect", then I'd have to agree you've found it. But nope - you show me nothing so far to convince me you understand what the markers may be, or how to quantify them. Rather, you rely on anecdotal gibberish and hype. You see some folks have success at some exposure, and you presume it to be gospel. Did it ever occur to you that some folks use syns in your application, and still get sludge? And some use dino, and don't get sludge?
If UOA micro data can show the onset of the problem, and you can indentify it, then don't hold back, because you can be the savior for the Honda faithful. If UOA micro data cannot define the onset, then why are you paying for the UOAs? You seem to infer that the UOA data in this thread is evidence of your choice being a good one, but then what is it you point to in assurance of the claim, because statistically the wear is well within normal response? You cannot have it both ways ChrisB. You cannot say the data shows this is a good choice, but then ignore the fact that the data shows no distinction between your syn and a typical dino oil. So, it the UOA data the basis of your markers, or not? Which is it?
It is my assessment that you have nothing to go on but your own supposition, backed up by other folks patting you on the back who also blindly follow the cattle trail.
You all would do well to read the "normalcy" article and internalize it.
Just because you all don't like my frank, stark assessment, does not mean I'm wrong here. Rude? Perhaps. Incorrect? Nope. Perhaps you find me offensive, brash and arrogant; maybe I am those things. But I find it irritating when folks mistakenly and carelessly apply incorrect conclusions. That's not the basis of the website's purpose. BITOG is a great place to share data and experiments, and to challenge others to prove their position. We can learn from each other. It was not created to be a sounding board for hap-hazard opinions and whimsical conclusions, backed up by other self-congratulatory lube bigots.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't hate synthetics. I actually use them in some of my applications. But I don't profess them to be a one-size-fits-all answer. Nor do I use them blindly, because marketing and buddies tell me to. I do abhor waste and misinformation.
I conclude by offering a sincere public apology for those I hurt emotinally; that is not my purpose or intent. But some of you need some tough love, whether you recognize it or not. No one promised you an easy time of it when you post a UOA; that's not in the site rules. We are expected to treat and respect each other as adults, but that does not infer we have to coddle or agree with each other. If you set out public info, then be prepared to back it up. I am sorry if I offended ChrisB or others, but I am not sorry for speaking the truth about the use and misuse of UOA data, nor the wreckless conclusions thereof made.