Recent Topics
Chery A520 2.0 L Transmisstion Oil
by Omar_Eltahan - 01/20/20 02:38 AM
castrol 5w30 c3 for an LS?
by neo3 - 01/19/20 11:32 PM
Windows 10 Upgrade Guide
by OVERKILL - 01/19/20 09:59 PM
FCA and Foxconn partner on EV's
by OVERKILL - 01/19/20 08:55 PM
IIHS Crash pics of Full Size Trucks
by kstanf150 - 01/19/20 08:15 PM
Are Engine Splash Guards Really Needed?
by Mr_Luke - 01/19/20 08:14 PM
supertec cartridge filters
by super20dan - 01/19/20 06:17 PM
More Valvoline on rollback at WM
by jayjr1105 - 01/19/20 06:13 PM
Crossed poles on jumper cables
by 3Aone - 01/19/20 05:33 PM
Napa Gold 7060 7.5K miles
by KenshinHimura - 01/19/20 05:09 PM
Can you move a car with the starter?
by atikovi - 01/19/20 04:49 PM
Leaf spring advice.
by mpack88 - 01/19/20 02:19 PM
Detroit 4-53T swap update.
by A310 - 01/19/20 12:54 PM
Wiper arm tension...
by Loogie - 01/19/20 12:26 PM
Changing Battery
by Char Baby - 01/19/20 12:16 PM
Newest Members
Bobjr94, GarageKings, JohnnyD1980, Harry_Seaward, MrH1325
70486 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
62 registered members (aquariuscsm, Astro_Guy, Astro14, 65convertible, 8 invisible), 1,636 guests, and 27 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics300,338
Posts5,173,626
Members70,486
Most Online3,825
Jan 19th, 2020
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 9 1 3 4 5 9
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Ducked] #4212971 09/27/16 06:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,261
K
kschachn Offline
Offline
K
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,261
This discussion has come up a lot, as to what is the maximum particle size detectable via ICP or AA. The answer has always been that it is relatively small.

Originally Posted By: Ducked
If the metals part of a UOA includes the particulate fraction, however defined, that'd potentially be a seriously uncontrolled variable.

If, say, you were getting ferrous metal settling out of your oil, (As I was. Not sure of the current status after a couple of oil changes and sump cleans) the amount in a sample would be heavily influenced by the sampling procedure and subsequent handling, especially settling times and shaking.

That's mostly out of the control of the commercial lab doing the analysis.

I suppose they could do a spin or filtration to take particulates out but that'd remove some evidence.


1994 BMW 530i, 251K
1996 Honda Accord, 280K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 430K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 284K
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Ducked] #4213406 09/28/16 08:17 AM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,216
B
BrocLuno Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,216
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Over in technical papers forum there is an ongoing discussion about wear metals, especially upper cylinder wear on straight SAE 30 HD vs multi-viscosity oils on cold start.


Link? Had a look and didn't see it.


Can't find it, but went back to an SAE 30 thread and have this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4156436/4

Shannow may have it linked better somewhere ...


Formerly in marine engineering. In an earlier life I owned my own petroleum tank truck, and hauled for the majors and independent's.
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Doublehaul] #4213833 09/28/16 05:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 14,326
C
CT8 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 14,326
Lets put it is a simple way that even those fooled by the marketing should be able to understand and
I like syn oils especially in drive lines. The over the road semi trucks are getting a million + miles on their $50,000 engines use convention oils that we all can but at Walmart. Syn oils have their advantages and are prescribed for those uses. I first used dyn oils in 1960 Stten C chemical lube in my 1968 Yamaha. And still do in some of the Vehicles I take care of.


2015 F150 2.7
2018 F350 6.2
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Doublehaul] #4213863 09/28/16 06:26 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,216
B
BrocLuno Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,216
Looks like it to me laugh


Last edited by BrocLuno; 09/28/16 06:26 PM.

Formerly in marine engineering. In an earlier life I owned my own petroleum tank truck, and hauled for the majors and independent's.
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: BrocLuno] #4213869 09/28/16 06:38 PM
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,213
R
Ramblejam Offline
Offline
R
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,213
BrocLuno,

Have you actually read the 21 year-old SAE paper (or the part II follow-up from the same individuals three years later, refuting some earlier positions), this originates from, or are you just blindly posting up a graph without any source attribution, and providing your own interpretation of what you think it demonstrates?

Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Ramblejam] #4213873 09/28/16 06:47 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,261
K
kschachn Offline
Offline
K
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,261
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
BrocLuno,

Have you actually read the 21 year-old SAE paper (or the part II follow-up from the same individuals three years later, refuting some earlier positions), this originates from, or are you just blindly posting up a graph without any source attribution, and providing your own interpretation of what you think it demonstrates?


What do you think?


1994 BMW 530i, 251K
1996 Honda Accord, 280K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 430K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 284K
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: BrocLuno] #4213874 09/28/16 06:51 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 537
C
carock Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 537
When I dealt with auto manufacturers and race engine managers in the past, none of them would accept a wear metal count from an oil analysis as an indicator of wear. In the end, there were some race engine managers that would accept weighing the actual metal left in the oil. Getting the metal weight left in the oil turns out to be an expensive test, probably about $3000 today. It seems kind of stupid when the race engines are going to be taken down anyway! The manufacturers either accepted engine tear down with inspection or the radioactive treatment of certain components and then measuring the oil with some form of a geiger counter. I never actually performed the radioactive type of test.

Really a subject for another thread, but where do people get the idea that UOA wear metal particle counts accurately predict engine wear? It seems logical, but I know of nobody in the industry that accepts this type of analysis as an accurate indication of wear.

Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Doublehaul] #4214008 09/28/16 09:56 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 998
N
Nederlander75 Offline
Offline
N
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 998
I few years back Buster posted commentary from Mobil regarding UOAs with them saying outright that metals in UOA were indicative of engine wear. This was presented by him at that time regarding the higher FE levels in M1 UOAs.

Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Doublehaul] #4214026 09/28/16 11:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,216
B
BrocLuno Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,216
I have actually read the paper. And I do concede that it is for oil formulations that have 1.) been superseded, and 2.) were for diesel engine applications (Mercedes IIRC...), 3.) also involved non-complete additive packages with lab grade partial oils (in other tests than the one graphed). This is the same paper that demonstrated the causes of upper cylinder wear (mostly condensation and corrosion).

I am interested because I live in a climate where straight SAE 30 HD is quite doable. I keep looking for a more modern paper that involves current chemistry and formulations. But such a paper does not seem to be forthcoming ...

However, their point that VII's do not contribute to actual lubrication is valid. They ultimately are basically either carriers or simply space users. In the case that they are carriers, they do help actual oil get to the needed surfaces. In the case of straight SAE 30, there are no VII's so it's all oil, all the time. Whatever film exists is pure lubrication smile

Does it apply to conventional vs synthetic - it may ... It all depends on how the oil are formulated. Some synthetic blend still rely on a healthy slug of VII's to make their range ...

Back in the day when I was in Marine Engineering, we did UOA's on ships and launch's oils all the time. We looked at ratios of various metals to inform of POSSIBLE wear, not actual wear. It's a pointer, not a scalpel ...

Last edited by BrocLuno; 09/28/16 11:09 PM.

Formerly in marine engineering. In an earlier life I owned my own petroleum tank truck, and hauled for the majors and independent's.
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Nederlander75] #4214027 09/28/16 11:15 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 33,833
D
demarpaint Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 33,833
Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
I few years back Buster posted commentary from Mobil regarding UOAs with them saying outright that metals in UOA were indicative of engine wear. This was presented by him at that time regarding the higher FE levels in M1 UOAs.


I could have sworn it was just the opposite. Do you have a link? I'd love to see it. I read comments like it was cleaning up and releasing wear metals trapped in remote areas of the engine, freeing them from sludge, etc. etc.


God Bless Our Troops

Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: demarpaint] #4214051 09/29/16 02:46 AM
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,825
D
Ducked Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,825
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
I few years back Buster posted commentary from Mobil regarding UOAs with them saying outright that metals in UOA were indicative of engine wear. This was presented by him at that time regarding the higher FE levels in M1 UOAs.


I could have sworn it was just the opposite. Do you have a link? I'd love to see it. I read comments like it was cleaning up and releasing wear metals trapped in remote areas of the engine, freeing them from sludge, etc. etc.


While I was ACTIVELY investigating the ferrous metal settling out in my oil, I took my oil pump apart to see if it was wearing badly.

Seemed OK but there was a sludge filled void in the casting.

I concluded that this kind of thing could make any deductions about current wear levels from current oil quality almost impossible, since sludge could be washing out of "historic" stores.

Last edited by Ducked; 09/29/16 02:47 AM.
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Ducked] #4214078 09/29/16 05:48 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 33,833
D
demarpaint Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 33,833
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
I few years back Buster posted commentary from Mobil regarding UOAs with them saying outright that metals in UOA were indicative of engine wear. This was presented by him at that time regarding the higher FE levels in M1 UOAs.


I could have sworn it was just the opposite. Do you have a link? I'd love to see it. I read comments like it was cleaning up and releasing wear metals trapped in remote areas of the engine, freeing them from sludge, etc. etc.


While I was ACTIVELY investigating the ferrous metal settling out in my oil, I took my oil pump apart to see if it was wearing badly.

Seemed OK but there was a sludge filled void in the casting.

I concluded that this kind of thing could make any deductions about current wear levels from current oil quality almost impossible, since sludge could be washing out of "historic" stores.

That coincides with what I recall reading about M1 and higher wear metals. I concluded it was from those "sludge filled voids" you mentioned.


God Bless Our Troops

Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Nederlander75] #4214170 09/29/16 08:02 AM
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 41,155
O
OVERKILL Offline
Offline
O
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 41,155
Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
I few years back Buster posted commentary from Mobil regarding UOAs with them saying outright that metals in UOA were indicative of engine wear. This was presented by him at that time regarding the higher FE levels in M1 UOAs.


I believe this was the other way around. Mobil stated that engine wear could not be gleaned from a UOA. I also believe buster posted about an F1 team that used UOA's with their custom blended lubricant, but again, this was on a specialized piece of machinery with highly controlled conditions and materials as well as massive trending in place. Definitely not relatable to firing off a UOA to Blackstone.


2019 RAM 1500 Sport - Mobil 1 EP 0w-20, FRAM Ultra
2020 Grand Cherokee SRT - Ravenol SSL 0w-40, FRAM Ultra
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: carock] #4214178 09/29/16 08:09 AM
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,825
D
Ducked Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,825
Originally Posted By: carock
The manufacturers either accepted engine tear down with inspection or the radioactive treatment of certain components and then measuring the oil with some form of a geiger counter.


Probably a scintillation counter, but however its done, I don't quite the difference in principle between the radio-labelling technique and (presumably spectrochemical) oil analysis. They both measure material in the oil.

The radio-labelling is probably more sensitive, and the source of the material could be more precisely and unambiguously identified, but the significance of, say, iron or radio-labelled iron in the oil seems about the same.

If there isn't any iron in the oil formulation it has to be the result of wear, surely?

Last edited by Ducked; 09/29/16 08:12 AM.
Re: Does conventional oil protect better? [Re: Doublehaul] #4214277 09/29/16 10:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 436
N
Nissan101 Offline
Offline
N
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 436
NO....Cooking oil protects better
ITS PROVEN!


Nissan N16 -10w30
Nissan S13 -20w50

Royal Purple HPS smile
Page 4 of 9 1 3 4 5 9
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™