Mobil 1 AFE 0w20 Add Pack Appears Weak!

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then the proof of an oil is in the UOA.
There are a number of good UOAs of AFE posted in that forum.
I'm very well set for both 0W-20 and thirty grade synthetics for the next several years, so I really don't need any oil.
If I did need oil for the next couple of changes in the various cars, I'd probably pick up a few jugs of AFE 0W-30 and a couple of the 0W-20.
Walmart's current pricing makes this an easy choice.
Incidentally, for those who prefer not to set foot in any Walmart location, Meijer has price matched Wally on M1 jugs.


I think the proof would be in the tear-down

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then the proof of an oil is in the UOA.
There are a number of good UOAs of AFE posted in that forum.
I'm very well set for both 0W-20 and thirty grade synthetics for the next several years, so I really don't need any oil.
If I did need oil for the next couple of changes in the various cars, I'd probably pick up a few jugs of AFE 0W-30 and a couple of the 0W-20.
Walmart's current pricing makes this an easy choice.
Incidentally, for those who prefer not to set foot in any Walmart location, Meijer has price matched Wally on M1 jugs.

I think the proof would be in the tear-down

...or the longevity.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: regal55
Fourier transform spectroscopy


AKA FT/IR.

 

[fdcg27]

Which will never happen because it will never be necessary with any street driven modern engine that sees anything close to reasonable maintenance.

 

[fdcg27]

Which will exceed that of the vehicle it's installed in, which is why the teardown Overkill writes of will never be necessary.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Which will never happen because it will never be necessary with any street driven modern engine that sees anything close to reasonable maintenance.


Then you won't get any proof.

A UOA doesn't tell you how well an oil is performing relative to engine wear and you know that. It tells you how long the lubricant can safely be used in service and the levels of contaminants in it.

A tear-down is necessary to gauge wear. There is no magic $20 test that is going to give you the same quality of information.

I kindly point you to yet another thread that illustrates this:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/uoa-vs-actual-bearing-wear.200468/

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Which will exceed that of the vehicle it's installed in, which is why the teardown Overkill writes of will never be necessary.


So a tear-down to gauge actual wear is unnecessary because we assume that the engine will out-last the vehicle, yet we are expecting to assume that a UOA in this application gives us meaningful wear data. But it will never be verified

I could post Doug's UOA data and tear-down pictures for the what seems like the millionth time on here with his 100+ppm of Fe and the immaculate 1.2 million Km liners but I don't really see that to be necessary because just mentioning it makes my point.

A "good" UOA in the context of this discussion could yield the exact same or even worse wear measurements during a tear-down as a "bad" UOA. It's like shaking the magic 8-ball. The useful data with respect to the lubricant is how well it holds up to fuel dilution/shear, how long it holds its TBN for....etc. This aides in one determining a safe OCI length for that lubricant in their vehicle and of course look for contamination. The entire purpose of the tool.

"The proof is in the UOA" is a fallacy. The PROOF is in the tear-down. Simply because nobody is willing to do them doesn't change the rules of the game. What constitutes fact is quite different from what constitutes conjecture, heresy and rhetoric.

Please understand I'm not saying this to be rude, I'm saying it because the distinction NEEDS to be made. No parallels can be drawn between actual measurements and what you glean from a $20.00 Blackstone report. One is factual the data, the other is simply the analysis of a substance flowing through an engine that is contaminated with a given amount of particulate that may or may not represent wear.

 

[KCJeep]

Yet we have a well respected member here using UOA wear ppm's to determine when to change the oil.

We've agreed to disagree on that one.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Yet we have a well respected member here using UOA wear ppm's to determine when to change the oil.

We've agreed to disagree on that one.

But that's the entire purpose of the tool

You use the contaminant levels coupled with TBN depletion to determine your optimal OCI.

For the engines Doug operated, the condemnation limit for Fe for example was 150ppm.

My argument has never been that a UOA doesn't give you useful information. It does, as I noted at the beginning of this post. It is an extremely useful tool for detecting coolant leaks, monitoring oil life....etc. What it doesn't do is give you accurate information about engine wear. If you want to see a good example of that, the thread I linked to a couple of posts up shows that in detail. But then so does the data Doug posted and he speaks of in his article on the main page.

 

[fdcg27]

You've leapt to the conclusion that a good UOA is all about wear metals.
It isn't.
Things like shearing, oxidation, nitration and residual TBN are all factors to consider in evaluating a UOA.
Certain contaminants, especially potassium and sodium (for oils that don't have sodium as part of there add pack) are useful indicators of problems.
Low wear metals are always nice to see, and much higher than typical wear metal levels across more than one UOA for any given engine should give an owner pause.
I'ts also true that a UOA may not give any warning of an impending catastrophic mechanical failure.
Still, low wear metals are consistent with low wear, and the cost of a UOA is really not a factor, as long as consistent lab methods are used when comparing one UOA to another.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You've leapt to the conclusion that a good UOA is all about wear metals.
It isn't.
Things like shearing, oxidation, nitration and residual TBN are all factors to consider in evaluating a UOA.
Certain contaminants, especially potassium and sodium (for oils that don't have sodium as part of there add pack) are useful indicators of problems.
Low wear metals are always nice to see, and much higher than typical wear metal levels across more than one UOA for any given engine should give an owner pause.
I'ts also true that a UOA may not give any warning of an impending catastrophic mechanical failure.
Still, low wear metals are USUALLY consistent with low wear, and the cost of a UOA is really not a factor, as long as consistent lab methods are used when comparing one UOA to another.


I think other than what I highlighted above, you've made the same points that I've already made, LOL!

I had thought you were headed another direction with your initial comments, I see now that you weren't, so my apologies.

Though I do hope you can see how it wasn't much of a leap for me to assume you were talking about UOA's being a crystal ball of wear with respect to your initial comments. I thank you for clarifying.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL



"The proof is in the UOA" is a fallacy. The PROOF is in the tear-down. Simply because nobody is willing to do them doesn't change the rules of the game. What constitutes fact is quite different from what constitutes conjecture, heresy and rhetoric.

Please understand I'm not saying this to be rude, I'm saying it because the distinction NEEDS to be made. No parallels can be drawn between actual measurements and what you glean from a $20.00 Blackstone report. One is factual the data, the other is simply the analysis of a substance flowing through an engine that is contaminated with a given amount of particulate that may or may not represent wear.

Well written.

 

[fdcg27]

My original point was that while M1 0W-20 may not have a great looking add pack, it seems to perform just fine in actual use.
There is no simple barometer of oil performance beyond the UOA.
You're right in that a teardown and measurement program would yield better wear data. The teardown would also tell you everything about deposit control.
Nobody is going to run a bunch of the same engine on a few different oils for a few thousand hours and then do teardowns, though, as interesting as that would be.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
My original point was that while M1 0W-20 may not have a great looking add pack, it seems to perform just fine in actual use.
There is no simple barometer of oil performance beyond the UOA.
You're right in that a teardown and measurement program would yield better wear data. The teardown would also tell you everything about deposit control.
Nobody is going to run a bunch of the same engine on a few different oils for a few thousand hours and then do teardowns, though, as interesting as that would be.


Yes, and given the fact that it, like most of the oils we will compare it to, has a decent list of approvals, we shouldn't find its performance surprising.

With respect to your last point, some of the OEM's do just that. It is a part of their approval process, tear-downs after a vigorous testing period covering a myriad of operating conditions. So in a sense, this is already done for us with many products. IIRC, Doug's tear-downs were done to validate the performance of Delvac 1 when he was testing it for XOM. This is also why I'm a big fan of the Euro-spec oils, as they appear to have far more in the way of vigorous testing regiments employed by the OEM's to validate lubricant performance in all of the categories that are deemed valuable than we do on this side of the pond.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Which will exceed that of the vehicle it's installed in, which is why the teardown Overkill writes of will never be necessary.

IF that is the case, I am in a quandary as to why we all spend hours and hours and threads upon threads discussing which oil is best, why thick is better than thin or vice-versa, why moly is better than titanium or vice-versa, synthetic is better than conventional or vice-versa, TBN, TAN, VII, HTHS, etc. etc. etc.

In reality, run whatever oil is specified for your vehicle or not, change as often as you wish or not, choose synthetic or conventional, UOA it or not, as long as it makes one happy with the choice, nearly any old oil will allow an engine to outlast the vehicle, so in effect we could stop posting all of this.

But where would the fun be in that? It would be so bleeding boring around here...

 

[fdcg27]

The problem is that the OEMs aren't going to share the data they've gathered.
I've long thought that both the car OEMs as well as the oil blender folks probably really do know what the best oils in every given grade are.
They just aren't sharing that information outside of a very select circle.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The problem is that the OEMs aren't going to share the data they've gathered.


Correct. We just have a general idea as to the parameters of their testing regiments and whether an oil has passed the test (gained the approval).

Quote:
I've long thought that both the car OEMs as well as the oil blender folks probably really do know what the best oils in every given grade are.
They just aren't sharing that information outside of a very select circle.


Hahahahah, you are probably right

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Yet we have a well respected member here using UOA wear ppm's to determine when to change the oil.

We've agreed to disagree on that one.

But that's the entire purpose of the tool

You use the contaminant levels coupled with TBN depletion to determine your optimal OCI.


Exactly my point. Maybe you thought I was referring to you I was not, although I was referring to the point you made. The member I don't agree with on that one is using "wear" number ppm's to determine whether or not his oil is truly shot, even when viscosity, TBN and TAN all indicate that it is...to me anyway. My contention is that the oil will be shot, and well past it's lubricating prime long before a UOA suggests his engine is chewing itself to pieces due to worn out oil. I am agreeing with your comment.

Never mind it's a bunny trail in this thread anyway.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Yet we have a well respected member here using UOA wear ppm's to determine when to change the oil.

We've agreed to disagree on that one.

But that's the entire purpose of the tool

You use the contaminant levels coupled with TBN depletion to determine your optimal OCI.


Exactly my point. Maybe you thought I was referring to you I was not, although I was referring to the point you made. The member I don't agree with on that one is using "wear" number ppm's to determine whether or not his oil is truly shot, even when viscosity, TBN and TAN all indicate that it is...to me anyway. My contention is that the oil will be shot, and well past it's lubricating prime long before a UOA suggests his engine is chewing itself to pieces due to worn out oil. I am agreeing with your comment.

Never mind it's a bunny trail in this thread anyway.


Gotcha. Sorry, wasn't following what you were saying, though I am now

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: regal55
The $25 dollar virgin Oil analysis is basically worthless these days.

Not worthless, but you get what you pay for. If you're doing trended UOAs, it certainly helps to have a VOA of the oil in question performed at the lab in question.