Hi,
saaber1 - Yes there are many "components" that can make up a lubricant's condemnation point via UOAs. The condemnation point can and most likely will be a three way compromise between the Component (engine, gearbox etc etc) Manufacturer's limits and the Oil Company's Engineer's limits. The third element is the end user's knowledge and experience based on the Trending information - and how comprehensive it is
IME Commercial operators who use UOAs as a maintenance management tool will very rarely condemn the lubricant on only one item (say Iron). They will usually take advice (or use their own trend data) and wait until a number of critical limits are reached (or are near) their established criteria. They will of course look for and typically investigate related WM spikes or items that may indicate cooling system or combustion issues
Knowing and understanding the metallurgy of the engine family is critical to ensuring the correct UOA interpretation - so is knowing and understanding the chemistry within the lubricant being used and how it acts over use and time
For the amateur interpreter there are many pitfalls. For instance in some Differentials 1000ppm Iron is a replace lube limit - 1500ppm Iron is the replace lube and monitor limit. In the same environment 120ppm and 250ppm Copper apply
In some engines fuel dilution is 2.5% in others 7%! Some engine have a 0.0% Soot limit - others have 3%. Some engines have a Lead limit of 10 and others 40!
IME the TBN and TAN factors are more important in little/spasmodically used components or when extending oil change intervals - if you are using the correct lubricant in the first place of course!
Esters in an overall sense are good dispersants and solvents - depending on the esters used of course! As I indicated previously this may skew the results in the initial UOAs after changing from say a mineral lubricant - until the lubricant containing the esters is well established
Single pass UOAs should be enjoyed by those with the time and money to "play" with them - that's fun. However IME when used as a measure to evaluate one lubricant against another (especially via wear metal uptake rate) - they at the best simply a vehicle for generating interesting conjecture!
saaber1 - As for Mobil 1 0W-40, shortly after I joined BITOG it became obvious that some purveyers of lubricants (in this case Amsoil's Tooslick in particular) had an aggressive campaign to discredit this product.
When asked to provide proof of failures and poor "in field" performance they were left wanting - they still are!
I have taken an interest in this because of my history with certain German engine manufacturers who use the product!
This lubricant passes the "stay in grade" requirements of the ACEA Test protocols - and more importantly thiose of the end user Manufacturers covering millions of their products for extended Warranty periods. My own Porsche has spent most of its life on M1 0W-40 and my Benz will live its life with me on it too!
On a recent visit to Germany in May I found that M1 0W-40 was universally applauded by Porsche users, Privateer racers and Dealers. After nearly a decade of use too!
And the retired MB Engineer I mentioned earlier who was seconded to ACEA during its foundation said that after many thousands of UOAs and VOAs he was convinced of the credibilty of the Manufacturer Approval process. I have been for many many years too
Many Oil Companies offer a 0W-40 lubricant today - and no doubt some of the technology used in these products is most probably sourced from EM
I have no Commercial relationship with any Oil Company!
saaber1 - Yes there are many "components" that can make up a lubricant's condemnation point via UOAs. The condemnation point can and most likely will be a three way compromise between the Component (engine, gearbox etc etc) Manufacturer's limits and the Oil Company's Engineer's limits. The third element is the end user's knowledge and experience based on the Trending information - and how comprehensive it is
IME Commercial operators who use UOAs as a maintenance management tool will very rarely condemn the lubricant on only one item (say Iron). They will usually take advice (or use their own trend data) and wait until a number of critical limits are reached (or are near) their established criteria. They will of course look for and typically investigate related WM spikes or items that may indicate cooling system or combustion issues
Knowing and understanding the metallurgy of the engine family is critical to ensuring the correct UOA interpretation - so is knowing and understanding the chemistry within the lubricant being used and how it acts over use and time
For the amateur interpreter there are many pitfalls. For instance in some Differentials 1000ppm Iron is a replace lube limit - 1500ppm Iron is the replace lube and monitor limit. In the same environment 120ppm and 250ppm Copper apply
In some engines fuel dilution is 2.5% in others 7%! Some engine have a 0.0% Soot limit - others have 3%. Some engines have a Lead limit of 10 and others 40!
IME the TBN and TAN factors are more important in little/spasmodically used components or when extending oil change intervals - if you are using the correct lubricant in the first place of course!
Esters in an overall sense are good dispersants and solvents - depending on the esters used of course! As I indicated previously this may skew the results in the initial UOAs after changing from say a mineral lubricant - until the lubricant containing the esters is well established
Single pass UOAs should be enjoyed by those with the time and money to "play" with them - that's fun. However IME when used as a measure to evaluate one lubricant against another (especially via wear metal uptake rate) - they at the best simply a vehicle for generating interesting conjecture!
saaber1 - As for Mobil 1 0W-40, shortly after I joined BITOG it became obvious that some purveyers of lubricants (in this case Amsoil's Tooslick in particular) had an aggressive campaign to discredit this product.
When asked to provide proof of failures and poor "in field" performance they were left wanting - they still are!
I have taken an interest in this because of my history with certain German engine manufacturers who use the product!
This lubricant passes the "stay in grade" requirements of the ACEA Test protocols - and more importantly thiose of the end user Manufacturers covering millions of their products for extended Warranty periods. My own Porsche has spent most of its life on M1 0W-40 and my Benz will live its life with me on it too!
On a recent visit to Germany in May I found that M1 0W-40 was universally applauded by Porsche users, Privateer racers and Dealers. After nearly a decade of use too!
And the retired MB Engineer I mentioned earlier who was seconded to ACEA during its foundation said that after many thousands of UOAs and VOAs he was convinced of the credibilty of the Manufacturer Approval process. I have been for many many years too
Many Oil Companies offer a 0W-40 lubricant today - and no doubt some of the technology used in these products is most probably sourced from EM
I have no Commercial relationship with any Oil Company!
