Umm… they ran the reportRegardless of how this vehicle is being driven this is a stellar report and with 30,000 miles on it to boot. I’m sure the folks at HPL will be interested to see this.
This looks like a Wearcheck report.Umm… they ran the report
So WearCheck ran the sample & HPL just put it on their header? Cool. Third party verification is always a great idea when numbers look this good.This looks like a Wearcheck report.
Doesn’t look like it had much of anything to filter out… since OP has been running HPL for a while. But yes, agree that a C&P would be great info as well!I wonder how the filter looked like.
True since I'd imagine he doesn't drive in any dusty areas, But 30k is still quite the number and those filters are small in size.Doesn’t look like it had much of anything to filter out… since OP has been running HPL for a while. But yes, agree that a C&P would be great info as well!
Actually we use wearcheck. We do this for 2 reasons. One to eliminate the question of bias and two, we do not like to run used oils in our lab equipment. We have much slower and more precise equipment as compared to a used oil lab. Very low wear rates here. Nice sample. Murray, you are on the right path.Umm… they ran the report
I can't speak for other oils but in viewing a lot of sample data on an off road fleet of ours, I do not typically see wear rates going up until the silicon gets into the 70's or 80's. The wear rates being so low I don't believe the silicon level is hurting anything here.Amazing! TBN 6.3, did you add much make up oil? Only worrysome item is silicon.
Thank you sir, @wwillson pointed that out to me, and I remember you mentioned that… nowActually we use wearcheck. We do this for 2 reasons. One to eliminate the question of bias and two, we do not like to run used oils in our lab equipment. We have much slower and more precise equipment as compared to a used oil lab. Very low wear rates here. Nice sample. Murray, you are on the right path.
David