Quote:
As an ex oil and product tester (outboard oils, Mobil 1 products) , I can tell you that the typical UOA done by Blackstone, Dyson, Avlabs and the others, don't often contain valid wear rate data. It's useful for trend only, same lab, same oil, same engine.
For example, the iron numbers are in PPM (parts per million) . If, you were to measure the size and weight of the particulates, you might, might have some wear based data. However, that's a rare and expensive set of tests. Even then, there are far too many variables.
Stop and consider just how much wear it takes to produce 50PPM, for example (it's tiny). And, do those 50 particulates remain suspended? Or do some of them remain elsewhere? Like in the sludge of a conventional oil, infrequently changed? Or, in the case of certain engine designs, lodged in drilled passages in the crankshaft, through centripetal force.
A far more valid set of wear related testing protocols are involved. Including actual part measurements with scanning electron microscopes. Both destructive and non destructive.
I don't claim to be an expert. I will claim to have seen the experts at work, and it's mighty impressive.
UOA is a tool, and not anywhere near sufficient to determine wear rates, especially between brands, users, and engine types.
Reply With Quote
On a corvette forum.
