Metal levels in extended drain intervals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
6
Location
Baton Rouge,LA
New to the forum.

I have read some comments on some of Blackstones reports and I have a question.

In some reports they state that iron tends to increase with mileage on the oil but other wear metals should follow universal averages even with extended intervals (apparently regardless of mileage).

This doesn't seem to make sense to me. IE if you had 5ppm of AL in a 5k interval, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect 10 ppm (or close) in another 5k on the same batch?

I know UOA is about spotting changes in trends and there are few absolutes but what is it about Iron vs the other metals that is different in a UOA?

Thanks,
Andy
 
Last edited:
For Fe you should expect xx PPM per 1k miles whether you do 3k OCI or 10k.

If you did not change the oil for a really long time and the contaminants got out of sight then they would cause wear themselves. But should not be a problem with a sensible OCI.
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
For Fe you should expect xx PPM per 1k miles whether you do 3k OCI or 10k.


Apparently.... they don't always (logic says they would)

Read the link I posted above
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
For Fe you should expect xx PPM per 1k miles whether you do 3k OCI or 10k.

If you did not change the oil for a really long time and the contaminants got out of sight then they would cause wear themselves. But should not be a problem with a sensible OCI.


OK, let's say that is the case.

Why not the same rule (IE linear) for the other wear metals? Is the Fe causing the wear (IE being abrasive in suspension) versus the softer metals that are just in suspension?
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: Donald
For Fe you should expect xx PPM per 1k miles whether you do 3k OCI or 10k.


Apparently.... they don't always (logic says they would)

Read the link I posted above


So, aside from that the test was done in 2003 and they didn't ever post up their completed analysis... (also their graph doesn't seem accurate to me?
confused2.gif
)

In terms of wear metals in the UOA, one would have to break it down to PPM/1k miles to get an idea if there is an increase/decrease or linear accumulation. To be honest, I wonder if it's even reasonable to conclude it's worth comparing the ppm results in 1k incredements between different samples sent to Blackstone? It's a $25 spectrum analysis anyway, right? More so to give a ballpark figure than exacts? So, not conclusive by a few ppm off.

I'd be more concerned with their findings of the oil thickening up; which is an older formulation of course, as to evidence of extending too far in that run. Anyone with results of it going up an entire grade in our UOA section, etc? I vaguely remember that guy in Philly posting his UOA with Amsoil 0w20 or 5w20 and it was shot due to 1/2 mile commutes over the winter.

Some oils are known to have ran with higher Fe numbers trending; looking squarely at M1 of those years in some engines, so it's not surprising. Where as Amsoil proves the opposite here, while at the same time their reported UOAs indicate the oil was due to be changes at 9k.

Note that when the TBN was basically finishing up at 9k miles they added 1 full quart and it boost to 2.4 TBN by the 10k report and immediately fell lower than the 9k reading once it reached 11k? That OCI was effectively over at 11k but they kept pushing it and THAT was when the Amsoil began to increase in Fe. So, given the "room" to top-off with an entire quart and their findings the OCI should've been capped at 11k for repeatable results (given the makeup oil added).

An entire new study with a couple apps/engine types; such as two of each type, with modern oil formulations could run similar tests to contrast with one another subjectively while objectively viewing their own results due to the differences in real world operation between the two (2 DI engines vs 2 engines that are easier on oil for example).
 
Last edited:
Andy, I will address this the way no one here on this forum has in over 14 years. Automotive wear is NOT linear. It is geometric. Meaning Ppm can NOT be calculated out per mile. It is a very bad way to look at it.

There are far too many variables that few people take into account here when looking at a UOA.
 
It's really only useful in establishing a trend and then verifying if something seems off. I mean why else are "Universal Averages" even referenced? Be that as it may, over-thinkers like to see if there are places during an OCI that could indicate the sweet spot for that particular engine/lube/filter, hence the discussion. Not for absolutes but sound estimates with other factors outside the scope of metals in ppm; unless of course something seems off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top