UOAs - PREVENTED ANY FAILURES?

[STG]

After reading through many of the posts on this website, I'm trying to figure out exactly what purpose UOAs serve in non-fleet operations.

1. Even if an engine is operated in EXACTLY the same manner under EXACTLY the same conditions and loads for EXACTLY period of time, how can you compare UOAs for subsequent OCIs? Is the presumption that any engine has the same wear characteristics from say 25,0000 miles to 30,000 miles as 30,000 to 35,000 or 40,000 to 45,000 false?

2. How many here have read an UOA and proceeded to tear down an engine in order to take some action to prevent a bigger problem? I must have missed the "UOA showed increased XXXX, so I replaced my camshaft before my engine exploded" thread.

3. Given 1 and 2 above, isn't wiser just to spend UOA money on additional oil change?

4. Just how accurate can at-home UOA sampling be? Aren't you dealing with small variations in lab results that could be attributed to how samples are taken?

5. How many have actually experienced an engine problem or failure that was actually PROVEN as a direct result of oil failure?

I just don't get this fascination with UOAs. I understand the marketing behind them, but what's the point on a 1998 Jeep with 136,000 miles?

 

[SWHeat]

A few good things would be antifreeze contamination,increased fuel dilution problem, and determining OCI length given TBN and your particular driving style. Those are good uses IMHO and is not an all encompassing list. Just a few examples in which I would have a UOA performed for my non-fleet car.

 

[hd2002]

I recently send in an oil sample about a month before the warranty was up. I saved about $2500 and possibly more damage. The way I see it at $20 a sample I have alot of free UOAs. Chevy dealer replaced heads. I just sent in a 1500 mile sample to make sure everything is OK.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/castrol-10w30-2380-miles-2005-silverado-5-3-liter.79417/

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: STG
After reading through many of the posts on this website, I'm trying to figure out exactly what purpose UOAs serve in non-fleet operations.


OK

Quote:
1. Even if an engine is operated in EXACTLY the same manner under EXACTLY the same conditions and loads for EXACTLY period of time, how can you compare UOAs for subsequent OCIs? Is the presumption that any engine has the same wear characteristics from say 25,0000 (sic) miles to 30,000 miles as 30,000 to 35,000 or 40,000 to 45,000 false?


Say what? Trying to figure out your question - but basically if everything is equal, the UOA's will be very similar. And trend very similarly.

Quote:
2. How many here have read an UOA and proceeded to tear down an engine in order to take some action to prevent a bigger problem? I must have missed the "UOA showed increased XXXX, so I replaced my camshaft before my engine exploded" thread.


Lots, over 50. Mostly GM's with coolant leaks. Some with extreme wear. Others (most) to prevent the future catastrophe.

Quote:
3. Given 1 and 2 above, isn't wiser just to spend UOA money on additional oil change?


I thought 1 and 2 are questions. I guess if you have a coolant leak, you can change your oil every 1000 miles and be OK. Works for me.

Quote:
4. Just how accurate can at-home UOA sampling be? Aren't you dealing with small variations in lab results that could be attributed to how samples are taken?


Don't expect miracles for $20. But the numbers are within reason. Yes - the sample should be taken midstream. I did a four lab comparison splitting a sample taken into a sterile, ultra clean glass beaker. (Ok it was a mason jar

) the Ca numbers varied a bit but most numbers were within reason.

Quote:
5. How many have actually experienced an engine problem or failure that was actually PROVEN as a direct result of oil failure?


That's debatable, maybe ask some Toyota or VW owners....not sure what this has to do with UOA's. Are you just venting now?

Quote:
I just don't get this fascination with UOAs. I understand the marketing behind them, but what's the point on a 1998 Jeep with 136,000 miles?


No one is forcing you to run a UOA. There may be no point to run one on your Jeep. Some people like to have a snapshot on the inside of their engines. For $20, a UOA is not a bad thing.

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: SWHeat
A few good things would be antifreeze contamination,increased fuel dilution problem, and determining OCI length given TBN and your particular driving style. Those are good uses IMHO and is not an all encompassing list. Just a few examples in which I would have a UOA performed for my non-fleet car.


Agree 100%

 

[Saab9-3]

I had a fuel dilution problem with my first UOA, and it was attributed to long idleing on warm up. I stopped doing the long idles and bingo, no more fuel dilution. Iam happy I spent 20$ for that.

 

[Bill in Utah]

A UOA showed a coolant leak on my 1999 Ford.

Since we caught it very early, no damage was done to the rest of the motor and the UOA DID get Ford to pay $1200 for the repair / parts (new heads and all labor) and rent a car for 3 weeks.

Oh, all OUT of warranty.

I'll continue to do useless $22 UOAs and see how things are going.

In my case, just spending the $$ that I spent on more oil changes would have COST me in the end. (coolant in the oil kills bearings)

Take care, Bill

 

[Spector]

Having done them for many many years I have come full circle and pretty much agree they are worthless for the ave person. For normal wear you can do little to change it and so what, engine will still go 200,000 miles, everything else will wear out first. Only if you have a severe problem, coolant leak (well isn't the overflow tank getting empty too often???)(fuel dilution, well, all the manuals say not to idle an engine to warm it up) that a UOA may catch they do not much in terms of being able to reduce wear, maybe peace of mind but even trend analysis, I have mutliple UOA on each car and the wear just varies all over the place and having done nothing about it, guess what, nothing bad has happened yet either.

So, I agree with the original post on the value of UOA!!! Basic routine maintenance and pay attention to fuid levels, read the owner's manaul and you will get 200,000 miles out of the engine, just pray the transmission and everything else holds up as well!

 

[mechtech2]

Things that are detected with a UOA are able to be checked by other standard means, or have very little real use [Oh Boy! Iron went from 2ppm to 4!!!!].
Sure, any info can be put to use, but I will never get a UOA for me or my customers.
If you can't see that your coolant is going down or holding pressure, then it is not going down.

 

[Brons2]

man if you guys hate UOA's so much why come to this site?

 

[cos]

Quote:
A few good things would be antifreeze contamination,increased fuel dilution problem, and determining OCI length given TBN and your particular driving style. Those are good uses IMHO and is not an all encompassing list. Just a few examples in which I would have a UOA performed for my non-fleet car.

+2

 

[pair of Blazers]

Quote:
A few good things would be antifreeze contamination,increased fuel dilution problem, and determining OCI length given TBN and your particular driving style. Those are good uses IMHO and is not an all encompassing list. Just a few examples in which I would have a UOA performed for my non-fleet car.
+3 my 1st UOA and I didn't notice missing coolant it was so small.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
4. Just how accurate can at-home UOA sampling be? Aren't you dealing with small variations in lab results that could be attributed to how samples are taken?



Although I would agree with you in terms of what one might expect with all kinds of people doing UOA under varied conditions ..using varied techniques ..

..but I've yet to see any real chaos that one would expect if this was an issue. I have to figure that the whole deal is factored for non-clean room ..non-lab technique conditions. One would just figure that at least one of a series of UOA ..even from the same person ..attempting to perfectly duplicate his/her previous process ..would fail.

SWHEAT makes some excellent points. Many of us aren't into 3k/3m regardless of how cheap it is. I've been into extended drains (where practical) since M1 came on the market. Most here just don't see the point. Even with proof that the oil is suitable for continued use, they still change it.


So, it could be asked, "What's the point of dumping $15 worth of oil when it's not even at its half-life"?

No ..wait!! Peace of mind, maybe? Now just exchange the wasted oil$$$ for wasted UOA$$$. The difference is blind false security ..the other somewhat informed false security.

 

[Bill in Utah]

No coolant loss detected in my engine. It was slight (just starting) and due to the UOA, NO damage was done to the engine since we caught it early.

Waiting till there is coolant drop or pressure drop is too late.

Damage will be done to the rest of the motor.

 

[Whimsey]

I was having UOA's done on my wife's 4.0 Explorer with extended drains, not everytime but to spot check the oil and engine wear. Terry caught a REAL LARGE spike in iron in one of the samples and alerted me. It turned out that the Explorer was "suffering" from the problem that many of those 4.0 SOHC Ford's had, failure of the timing chain tensioners. Unfortunately Ford's answer was to replace the failed tensioners with the exact same tensioners for a wapping $3000+++ for the the front and back ones that had failed. We traded that 2002 Explorer in for a 2005 Explorer with the 4.6 V8 when Ford was offering "employee" pricing in the summer of 2005. We got a great price for the "problem" 2002 as a trade in and a really great price for purchasing the 2005. The UOA's really paid off for us.

Whimsey

 

[hannaco]

Two cases of engine being saved on two different cars.
First a VW, the UOA said to check the oil cooler because the Cu had been trending up, and the K/Na was up. Darned thing had sprung a leak.
Second a Chevy van. UOA said to check the intake/head gaskets because K/Na was up while all else had remained constant. Darned thing had sprung a leak.
In both cases, if it had gone on, new motors would have been needed. Darned coolant in the oil is murder on the bearings.
In both cases, long term trends had spotted the problems.

 

[T-Bone]

Originally Posted By: STG
After reading through many of the posts on this website, I'm trying to figure out exactly what purpose UOAs serve in non-fleet operations.


Here's what sold me on UOAs: My dad was driving a 1987 Dodge Omni GLH (2.2 turbo) and he did a UOA. It showed very high silicon.

We opened up the engine air filter and intake system, and sure enough found a rubber gasket that had sucked in allowing unfiltered air in. The next UOA after fixing it had very low silicon.

I appreciate the various atomic level iron wear info, TBN, fuel dilution, etc. from UOAs but finding a real world fault like this is a good reason for UOA.

Regards,
Steve

 

[Cutehumor]

I like to know the stories of people collecting payment from manufactuer from UOA's

 

[Titan]

I now confidently double the manufacturer's recommended OCI's on my vehicles due to information from UOA's. I may be confidently screwing up, but, the wear patterns lead me to believe it's fine. That saves me money in the long run.

 

[STG]

Pablo,

I thought the following was pretty clear:

1. Even if an engine is operated in EXACTLY the same manner under EXACTLY the same conditions and loads for EXACTLY period of time, how can you compare UOAs for subsequent OCIs? Is the presumption that any engine has the same wear characteristics from say 25,0000 miles to 30,000 miles as 30,000 to 35,000 or 40,000 to 45,000 false?

Let me restate.

The UOAs discussed on this site often involved minute changes. Some differences in particle count can only indicate a potential problem IF ENGINE COMPONENTS WEAR AT A LINEAR RATE. Does an engine wear at the same rate from 5,000 to 10,000 miles as it does from 30,000 to 35,000?

As far as I recall Toyota and VW had sludge problems in certain engines. Both manufacturers specified oils to be used in these engines. If the oils specified met OEM specifications, the fault lies in the design of the engines NOT THE OILS. This is why Toyota and VW paid for engines repairs and replacements and why VW changed their oil specifications to synthetic. I do not recall Exxon-Mobil or SOPUS paying for Toyota or VW engines.