How does PP 5W-20 stack up against M1 EP?

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: irv
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Overkill, but it makes no sense (nor will it ever) to me to use an oil that receives less than stellar UOA's. Imo, that just goes against common sense.

The point is, on the examples Overkill used where he called the differences insignificant, that's exactly what he means, and he is correct. You cannot correlate or divine some ppm/mi amount to so many microns of wear. We have also had on the board engines with regular UOAs being run that have blown up without anything being awry in the UOA.

Simply put, it's chasing one's own tail and using UOAs in a purpose for which they weren't intended. They're not that fine of an instrument, and Doug Hillary or any of the formulators here will tell you the same. To be blunt, even Terry Dyson, who charges large dollars to read the tea leaves, as it were, will not have bothered chasing people from one interchangeable lube to another based on a few PPM of iron.

Note that the Chevy small block is an engine that sheds large amounts of iron, yet routinely would go over a million kilometres in fleet operation.

 

[PimTac]

Not trying to pile on you here irv but Overkill and Garak have a lot of experience in this regard. I trust their opinions highly here

 

[PimTac]

“Note that the Chevy small block is an engine that sheds large amounts of iron, yet routinely would go over a million kilometres in fleet operation.“


I was just thinking of this example as I read through the comments. The iron ppm numbersfrom these engines would scare anyone used to seeing a uoa from a Toyota engine for example. Yet the Chevy will run for a long time.

In many ways I really wonder what the value of a uoa is to a average driver? Fleets yes but for commuters and soccer moms, I’m not so sure.

 

[Garak]

Yes, the iron number son those would scare some people, to be sure.

UOAs could have use to soccer moms or any other daily driver. They can extend OCIs and benefit from the data like anyone else. Of course, they won't see the benefit as quickly or as sharply as someone operating a fleet. If we could actually correlate wear to individual UOAs across different oil chemistries and viscosities and driving patterns, let alone bothering with trended analysis, we'd be in a pretty peachy position. With what we have, though, we just have to beware not to read into the data what's not there. A few PPM here and there are insignificant in trended analysis, much less when trying to compare QSUD 5w-30 to Edge 5w-30, for instance.

Where I get a bit nervous with UOAs is when people use them to talk themselves into an expensive boutique where it might not really be necessary or to nudge themselves out of spec when it's not really warranted. Trying to differentiate between two in spec lubes of the same viscosity might be a bit misguided, but at least it's fairly harmless.

 

[irv]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Overkill... so humor me here. You're trying to tell me that monitoring contamination and suitability for continued use do not tell me ANYTHING about how/if the oil is protecting the engine? So guys like Terry Dyson making specific oil and usage recommendations are really just witch doctors pulling ideas out of a crystal ball?

I'm just a simple guy, so it seems like if I paid Mr. Dyson for an analysis that didn't mean anything, and his recommendations didn't result in improvements, then I would no longer request or pay for his services. Repeat this just a couple times, and the word spreads like wildfire... hence in a short time, there would be no more oil analysts making recommendations. But that's not the case, is it?

And I argue to the contrary... in my Forester I drive a set route to and from work, same speeds, same usage, every day. When I ran RT6, I got great UOAs with 7.5k+ OCIs. I switched to M1 0W40 on a 6k OCI, my consumption went up, my wear metals went up (iron and aluminum nearly doubled); when I switched back to RT6, the numbers and consumption went back to where they were prior to M1. If that's not confirmation that UOAs give me SOMETHING that is useful about determining the better lubricant, then I give up. I'll stick with the PQIA warning oils, since hey, UOAs are pointless in telling me the oil is bad for my engine, right??



So, you guys are saying, SubieRubieRoo, myself and others were silly to stop using an oil that showed elevated wear metals in UOA's?

If that is indeed the case, then this thread should just stop now as I will never agree with that analogy no matter how much data, theories, opinions or spin is placed on it.
Like I mentioned, and I am not sure if Subie ran another oil change/UOA with Mobil oil but if the wear metals continued/showed on the next UOA(s) it is just silly, imo, to continue to use that oil.

For the record, I use Pennzoil oils in both my vehicles, Mobil-1 Euro 0W-40 in my Yamaha Vector 4 stroke, Mobil-1 gear oil in my snowmobiles chain cases and will likely also use Mobil gear oil in my diffs on my truck.

If I start seeing Pennzoil oils receive higher than average metal counts in UOA's, then I will stop using their oil as well and move onto something else.

I am not brand loyal, I just like purchasing my hard eared money on something I know is doing the best possible job it can and is designed for.

Thanks for the info/thread guys, it was educational, to a point.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: irv
So, you guys are saying, SubieRubieRoo, myself and others were silly to stop using an oil that showed elevated wear metals in UOA's?

No, that's not the case. What I'll ask is what you call elevated wear metals that would trigger you to change brands?