Typical Parts Per Million

[Bill]

Does anyone have a 'Typical PPM' for iron, lead,
etc., for automobile engines, transmissions?

Many years ago, I sent a letter to CTC (Cleveland Technical Center) requesting an average or typical
wear metal information for an engine, CTC sent me a graph that looked similar to an oil analysis sheet but there were three rows labeled 'Average', 'Excessive' and 'Abnormal', and the wears metals were listed in the rows corresponding to each type of wear.

I probably have this sheet somewhere packed away,
if I find it, I will post it.

I did a search and found no information pertaining to 'Typical' wear or a sheet like the
one I received from CTC, btw, I got this graph
back in the early 90's, I do not know if CTC or any other oil analysis labs publish or give out this type of this data any more.

The reason for wanting this information is because
there are people who type post about oils having high wear metals or more wear metals then another brand, and I think this is fretting over nothing.

If we had a post of (if available) the typical wear metals for engines, transmissions, the fears of using a brand of oil may be alleviated.

 

[Ugly3]

Have you seen this page?

Oil Analysis

 

[Bill]

Thanks Ugly,

I haven't seen that page,
this is on the right track

The chart I got from CTC listed wear for transmission, diesel and gas engines and few other things.

I think if more people reviewed this chart listed on the BITOG, there would be less worrying about wear numbers in an oil analysis.

Maybe some of us on BITOG have a chart that has been given out by one or more of the oil labs that perform our analysis, and the wear averages can be listed on this website.

 

[Spector]

"The reason for wanting this information is because
there are people who type post about oils having high wear metals or more wear metals then another brand, and I think this is fretting over nothing"

I agree, each UOA is unique to an engine, driver, climate etc and only the trend on a specific engine is what matters. No one knows when and if an engine will destruct given high wear numbers in any metal. Is it the diff between 150,000 or 250,000 or 100,000 - 150,000 no one knows. As I have stated before I have one where the lead has average 25 ppm for 12 years over 7500 OCI and still going strong at 170,000 miles. Most people on here fret over lead exceeded 5 ppm!

Blackstones universal averages are pretty much use IMO.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Have you seen this page?

Oil Analysis

---

These numbers may be way high and only provide gross numerical information. Your best bet is just to look thrugh a number of reports to see what numbers and then read the comments.

Certain engines produce more of one wear metal than another and these will/may change as the vehicle gets broken in.

Usual numbers for engines that we see here:

Iron-2 to 3 ppm per 1000 miles
Lead-1 to 2 ppm per 1000 miles
Copper-1 ppm per 1000 miles
Aluminum- 1 ppm per 1000 miles
Other metals are usually under 1 ppm per 1000 miles

Transmissions...anyone's guess.

 

[Bill]

quote:

---

I agree, each UOA is unique to an engine, driver, climate etc and only the trend on a specific engine is what matters. No one knows when and if an engine will destruct given high wear numbers in any metal. Is it the diff between 150,000 or 250,000 or 100,000 - 150,000 no one knows. As I have stated before I have one where the lead has average 25 ppm for 12 years over 7500 OCI and still going strong at 170,000 miles. Most people on here fret over lead exceeded 5 ppm!

---

I agree.

quote:

---

These numbers may be way high and only provide gross numerical information.

---

That may be true but that is why I am asking if anyone has a copy of
a typical wear values chart for oil analysis from a lab, to get an idea what the labs reports as normal and abnormal wear.

quote:

---

Usual numbers for engines that we see here:

Iron-2 to 3 ppm per 1000 miles
Lead-1 to 2 ppm per 1000 miles
Copper-1 ppm per 1000 miles
Aluminum- 1 ppm per 1000 miles
Other metals are usually under 1 ppm per 1000 miles

---

That is the ‘Typical’ wear we see here, but if someone has a analysis with more wear then they may worry when there is no reason for doing so.

quote:

---

Transmissions...anyone's guess.

---

There are wear ppm’s that are considered average, excessive and abnormal, the wear chart I saw from CTC had three categories for wear in the transmission.


If there was a ‘Wear Chart’ showing the three different types of wear,
someone could see that if their analysis wear fell into a normal wear area but not into
the Excessive or Abnormal wear, they would realize that their wear is higher compared to another analysis but that their engine will not wear out soon from the wear ppm’s they have in their analysis(s).

Also, I know we here at BITOG want the best analysis possible, nothing wrong with that

 

[427Z06]

Bill, I think you may misinterpret "BITOG critical analysis" as "worry", and "typical BITOG banter" as "frett".

You are experiencing the typical BITOG neophyte reaction to how we split hairs here. I had the same reaction when I first arrived too. After you spend some time here, you'll get use to it. We also have our share of people who use nothing but the cheapest, latest API rated oil who continually remind us how wacky we all are.

 

[Bill]

427Z06,

I have been perusing this site longer then most have ... look at my member number

I am not new to this site,
I am one of those anal oil people...

I am trying to help the new people who come in here and make statements that one oil has more wear ppm's then another when the ppm's diff is nil,
and worry about how they have 5 ppm more iron then another car with the same engine

 

[427Z06]

Oops....sorry Bill, missed your member number. I see your point now. Maybe some kind of warning label on the front page would be appropriate:

Caution, lubrication fanatics reside at this website. Hair splitting ppm discussions should be taken with a grain of salt. See this chart for realistic ppm wear values.

 

[Bill]

No problem 427Z06,
yup, we need that 'Caution' note,
so we do not have someone afraid to use an oil because someone's opinion or discussion of
an analysis having a few more ppm's wear when comparing analysis's.

I think it would be helpful to compile a
chart of wear ppm's using two or more of the 'Average', Excessive', and 'Abnormal'
wear charts.
Now I need to dig up my old wear chart
to compare to todays wear averages.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by widman:
Oli analysis is one of several toola available for proactive maintenance. The amounts of each wear metal depend on the actual metals or materials used in each engine. Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit publish a list that is really useless. Scania told me that there are too many differences between their own engines to publish a table.
Although UOA often is used for comparing oils, in the one or two sample history it is not very valuable, since there are too many other variables. I can identify great diffenences between oils because I have sampled many times in similar conditions and replaced brands. After a few thousand analysis I have good trends and averages, which also vary with the engine and application.
In proactive maintenance, we use whatever level we get and try to reduce it, setting the limits acceptable. Different companies/people set different limits of acceptance. But the limits are then used to correct maintenance, or extend oil change intervals.
Once you know that engine "X" can show certain results, it can be the benchmark to try for others. It is often then that we encounter problems with mixture ratio, operating temperature, contamination, fuel temperature, load, vibrations, or other variables that need fixing.

---

That's fine and dandy, widman, but most people here don't have access to such a database other than what Blackstone calls "universal averages". But without providing some basic statistics such as standard deviation, those averages are next near to useless. The best that most neophytes here can probably do is trend over time to make sure nothing spikes up with or without some trouble indicators such as potassium, sodium, fuel dilution, insolubles.

Further, even if using your database you can determine great difference between oils, so what? Is one oil producing 1 ppm lead going to increase engine life over another oil producing 6 ppm lead?
If you know of a peered reviewed scientific study that can prove so, point me to it.

 

[widman]

The point is that it is a tool. You can only use the tool to the extent you run it in similar situations.
I ran samples on two identical engines that sat side by side, shared the same load, were only 3 serial numbers apart in manufacturing. The one running Citgo/PDV ran a consistant 22 to 23 ppm of iron per thousand hours. Chevron in the other engine ran consistently between 3 and 4 ppm of iron. The owner insisted that this was insignificant and he wanted to see the condition of the valves at 10,000 hours. At 7,000 hours the Citgo/PDV engine needed an overhaul. And the owner insisted that we had to start over after the overhaul and examine parts at 10,000 hours.
At 9,000 hours the Citgo/PDV engine blew, and the repair was estimated at $500,000.
Analysis told us that one engine was wearing 7 times faster than the other.
-
I also have series of analysis (some posted on my site) that demonstrate some oils that lose viscosity by 150 hours and then thicken up at 250, but with high wear rates.
-
UOA is also excellent at identifying the protection offered by different air filters. I have some of those posted as well, and you can see by what I posted on my recent torture test why I therefore stick with stock Denso filters.

But in the end it is just a tool. It helps you make informed decisions instead of going for fame or some other less scientific reason. I don't spend $1000 a month on UOA for the fun of it. Once it is spent I try to get results (savings) from it.

 

[widman]

Oli analysis is one of several toola available for proactive maintenance. The amounts of each wear metal depend on the actual metals or materials used in each engine. Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit publish a list that is really useless. Scania told me that there are too many differences between their own engines to publish a table.
Although UOA often is used for comparing oils, in the one or two sample history it is not very valuable, since there are too many other variables. I can identify great diffenences between oils because I have sampled many times in similar conditions and replaced brands. After a few thousand analysis I have good trends and averages, which also vary with the engine and application.
In proactive maintenance, we use whatever level we get and try to reduce it, setting the limits acceptable. Different companies/people set different limits of acceptance. But the limits are then used to correct maintenance, or extend oil change intervals.
Once you know that engine "X" can show certain results, it can be the benchmark to try for others. It is often then that we encounter problems with mixture ratio, operating temperature, contamination, fuel temperature, load, vibrations, or other variables that need fixing.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by widman:
The one running Citgo/PDV ran a consistant 22 to 23 ppm of iron per thousand hours. Chevron in the other engine ran consistently between 3 and 4 ppm of iron. The owner insisted that this was insignificant and he wanted to see the condition of the valves at 10,000 hours. At 7,000 hours the Citgo/PDV engine needed an overhaul. And the owner insisted that we had to start over after the overhaul and examine parts at 10,000 hours.
At 9,000 hours the Citgo/PDV engine blew, and the repair was estimated at $500,000.

---

So, from this one incident you conclude you can tell when all engines will give up their ghost from UOAs?

 

[widman]

One example out of many.
Another example of the use of UOA is a company I'm working with where we have replaced Shell Mysella LA with Chevron HDAX LA. In the 3 engines where we have made the change -CAT 3412 G engines- we have reduced nitration, oxidation, and TAN by 50%, while reducing wear metals by 50%. While this is significant, comparing it with "desired" results from other engines, I identified that it could be much better, and working with the mechanics discovered that the engines are running temps at 86C, while this engine requires 88 to 93C operating temps. They were not running anti-freeze since the engines run 24 hours a day, meaning that the water boilded out of the radiators with the CAT thermostats since they are at 12,000 feet above sea level where the water boils at 86. conclusion, if they run Antifreeze (additional 17C boiling point with a good antifreeze) they can put back the CAT thermostat, reduce oil degradation and wear further while extending oil change intervals.
On several occasions I have found water or antifreeze leaks into the oil. A repair of a head gasket is much cheaper than an engine overhaul.
On many samples I have identified maintenance habits (high pressure air to clean air filters, high pressure water to clean engines, etc.) that have saved thousands of dollars for dozens of customers.
On several samples I've identified high soot, which is poor combustion, $ wasted in fuel, high engine wear from the high soot. The resulting adjustment of injector pressure or cleaning has reduced wear, which will extend engine life.
On various samples I've seen that Oil-bath air filters let in too much dust and add to engine wear. There are few K&N filters in the market, but I've also seen the additional dirt that passes through them. Dirt becomes liquid sandpaper.
I've seen 991 ppm of iron on a Toyota pickup in 3,000 km from high pressure air used to clean the air filter. This compares to As I mentioned, there are many where the viscosity loss in 100 hours was causing high wear.
There are also oils where the viscosity has increased one grade in 100 hours.
There are lots of examples. Way too many to mention here. As I said, it is a tool. If you want to use it, it is valuable. But there are lots of people who buy tools to hang in the garage and never actually use them. It's value grows with the amount of similar samples you accumulate or the input you get from professionals.
I don't use the two services represented on this board -Blackstone or Terry-. After trying several labs 6 to 8 years ago, I have ended up with CTC. Their standard comments are useless to me as they do not know the equipment. But they are a resource that I use for the actual analysis and questions -you can never learn too much about this-. I get the opinion that Blackstone serves the same purpose. I further get the opinion that Terry gives his customers the personalized help that I give my customers. I get the opinion that Terry does this for a living and wants orneeds to give good advice to build his business by making the analysis more than a tool hanging in the garage. I do not charge for analysis or training. It's part of the mission of my company to raise the level of education and ability to compete in the world of the Bolivian engineers and companies. One of the underlying strategies is that in being the company interested in the customers' needs and bottom line they will buy lubricants from me and I will pay my bills. It is part of this strategy that I sponsor the web site and forum for the Bolivian maintenance engineers and go around the country speaking at their conventions and University courses.
Yes, there are fanatics on this board that split hairs and try to determine differences to the ultimate degree. Great! Until you strive for perfection you never will see improvement. But there are too many variances for the average car owner to interpret without the help of a professional who does this day in and day out, with constant communication with the end user..
Oil analysis is a Science. The interpretation of the results is an ART.

 

[Roger3116]

Very well said WIDMAN. It is indeed a pleasure to hear from someone who is an expert on oil and oil analysis. We hear way too much from people who "think" they are experts and expect their views to be taken as the Bible of oil knowledge. Please let us hear from you more often. Roger

 

[Spector]

"Oil analysis is a Science. The interpretation of the results is an ART. "


So very true and being an art it is very often that the interpretation has no bearing on reality! Often times it does. All arts are probably 25% crap shoot, including medicine. Experience matters.

However, the orginal question had to do with the average driver, given no mechanical issues with the engine, is it practical to develop a UOA trend to extend the longevity of the engine. For the vast majority of the population, IMO NO! Why, it will not make a hill of beans difference in how long they keep that car.

 

[ekpolk]

A great discussion. As a "non-expert" who is working hard to get a better handle on UOA, I'm troubled by two things (actually more, but these are at the forefront):

1) How, if at all, does particle size/geometry get worked into the analysis. Obviously, you want to know where the wear metals are coming from and if they represent a problem. Leaving that question aside for a moment, it seems that there's an unspoken assumption all wear particles are a threat that ought to be removed. But what if the particles are all less than a micron, for example, and the smallest engine clearances are all several microns across, wouldn't the particles be absolutely harmless, at least to a point? And as to geometry, don't certain particle shapes actually have the potential to enhance lubrication, versus degrading it?

2) I beleive that our collection of UOAs is a tremendous resource. But I also think that 95% of the time, we're guilty of comparing apples to oranges, because we look at the absolute amount of a substance (iron, lead, etc.) in the sample without factoring in the per distance traveled variable. I have decided that all my future UOA postings are going to have an added column for "per 1,000 miles" to try to bring some order to this. In addition, I'm going to make this calculation for other user's UOAs before I compare them, and pretty much dismiss those that don't include mileage.

Am I being waaaaay anal, or am I headed in the right direction??? Terry? Widman?

 

[427Z06]

widman, I don't think most people here would deny that UOAs are very useful tools for someone in your position or Terry's. The point of the original post, if I understand it correctly, was that we have people here that do a couple of UOAs, see no obvious problems but slightly elevated wear metals and then are convinced that they need to scour the earth to obtain the "perfect" oil no matter the costs. As a hobby, there's nothing wrong with that, but I think the original poster's concern was that some people who aren't regular visitors and/or aren't well read in the field of Tribology, might be unduly concerned.

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert when it comes to interpreting UOAs. That's why I use and pay for Terry's services. However, I don't think I could be employed as an engineer for 24 years and acquire three science degrees if I was an idiot. The case you site for comparing Citgo/PDV and Chevron oils doesn't really prove anything unless there's additional information to verify the cause and effect relationship that we're unaware of. The Citgo/PDV engine was putting out 7 times the iron, so maybe the engine was defective to start with? Were both engines dismantled and inspected by a qualified process engineer to determine the exact cause of failure? Did you switch oils midway through the life of the engines to see if the wear metal trends reversed? In any event, if it consistently put out 7 times the normal level of iron, even an amateur such as I would investigate further if a database revealed it was significantly larger than the normal variation for this particular engine design.

 

[widman]

Unfortunately there are many people hee who don't get concerned with 7 times the wear or understand the trends.
Anyway, the size of the particles is also important and that is where we normally do not analize enough. Maybe one of these days I'll have enough money and time to run particle counts on engine oils, but we end up taking the big steps before the little ones. Analysis ends up measuring what normally passes through a good oil filter - anywhere from 5 to 8 microns, depending on the equipment. The big stuff that goes through a bad filter doesn't get measured, and there is no way to measure the direct damage done on the way through the rings the first time - except for the Southwest Research Lab test with dust in radioactive rings.
For the average car, average use, not trying to see if you can pass the million mile mark, I believe that if you can keep the silicon under 10 and avoid sodium ingestion, either from the air or water, you should be able to keep iron under 10, with 1 to 4 ppm of copper, lead, chrom, etc. in the average engine with a reasonable oil change frequency. Those numbers should be easy and enough for most people.
Where we end up going into more detail is with the companies that have 200 engines to worry about. Changing oil brands and several maintenance procedures - step by step - in one company we were able to double the oil change interval while reducing wear significantly. The doubled oil change frequency frees up 10,000 productive hours a year for their equipment and reduces directy 10,000 man hours of maintenance time.
These are the studies where most of my time goes, rather than perfecting the average car.
-And, yes, time vs ppm is critical. One without the other is useless.
The particle shape and size is another point that is very valid, and my OPINION -no equipment to prove it- is that the better the HTHS on an oil, the more it can protect against these elements.